Public report — kommerce-core, published 22 Sep 2026. Concrete security findings (which rule fired, in which file, on which line; CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are REDACTED in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Public
Codebase survey Measured under the Code Assurance Index · rubric rubric-2026.09.15 (frozen) · verify this survey Filed cd_a0619d5f3f8841c797380c03796e9195 Filed 25 September 2026, 05:09 UTC Public

Inklabs/kommerce-Core

Measured 22 September 2026, 08:23 UTC

Supply-chain provenance is not scored
64% Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Architecture 99% Exemplary Security 97% Exemplary Code Health 95% Exemplary Maturity 58% Adequate Readiness 49% Adequate

Medium · 30,791 LoC · rebuild ~0.4 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (49%)

Findings by grade

4 critical 179 serious 10 minor 44 could not be resolved — could be critical — see Limitations

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
22 September 2026, 08:23 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index does not certify, approve or guarantee this codebase; it records a reproducible number and the evidence it was computed from. The standard is authored by Canine Development, who also build Watchdog — its only implementation today. That is said here so the number is checked rather than believed.

Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸

24/27dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
187findings with an exact file:lineof 193 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
27/115dimensions across the health lenses30791 LoC — wide & deep
Chapters

Executive summary

Preview (pre-1.0). This repo hasn't declared a stable release, so it's judged against a relaxed, pre-production bar.

The system holds an adequate overall standing of 64%, reflecting a codebase that is structurally sound but operationally fragile. While the underlying logic is robust, the current setup carries real risk in how it is delivered and maintained, potentially slowing future releases and increasing the cost of change.

This medium-sized asset contains roughly 30,000 lines of production code, representing a modest investment of about half a person-year to rebuild. The value here is not in complex business logic, but in the stability of the delivery process. The cost of inaction is higher than the cost of fixing the immediate operational gaps, as the current state obscures the true health of the system from leadership.

The primary risk lies in operational readiness, which scores poorly at 49%. This gap means the system lacks the necessary testing, observability, and security controls to be safely operated in production. Without addressing this, the team faces higher defect rates, longer outage recovery times, and increased exposure to security incidents. The code itself is healthy, but the environment around it is not prepared for reliable delivery.

A secondary concern is knowledge maturity, with a score of 58%. The team struggles to document significant decisions, making it difficult for new engineers to understand the context behind design choices. This lack of institutional memory increases the risk of repeating past mistakes and slows down onboarding, effectively raising the long-term cost of maintaining the system.

On the positive side, the code quality and architecture are excellent, scoring 95% and 99% respectively. The domain modeling is clean, and the security posture is strong at 97%. These strengths provide a solid foundation that makes remediation easier and less risky than it might appear.

Focus first on porting the build pipeline to a working CI service and removing dead configuration. This single action restores trust in the delivery process with minimal effort. Once the pipeline is stable, address the documentation gaps to improve team velocity. The picture is partial, as several key areas were not measured, but the immediate path to improvement is clear.

Code Health 95% ★ Exemplary Architecture 99% ★ Exemplary Maturity 58% Adequate · gated by D34, M2 Readiness 49% Adequate · gated by P1, P3 Security 97% ★ 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 49% · 47% weightMaturity 58% · 26% weightCode Health 95% · 14% weightSecurity 97% · 8% weightArchitecture 99% · 4% weight

Raise Readiness 49 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 64 → ~71.

Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
New since the last scan (100+)

177 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-08-04) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required. Showing the first 100; the full set is in the report.

  • D3 · MethodTooLong: Mapper.getHandler src/Lib/Mapper.php
  • D4 · Edited copy of a member (37 corresponding lines) src/Entity/Address.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (34–35 lines × 2) src/Entity/Address.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) src/Service/InventoryService.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (16–19 lines × 3) src/Entity/Image.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src/Entity/Product.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (14–17 lines × 3) src/Entity/Address.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 4) src/Entity/Address.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) src/Entity/Image.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Doctrine/Functions/Mysql/Distance.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Entity/Option.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Entity/ShipmentLabel.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Lib/PaymentGateway/ChargeRequest.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) src/Entity/Address.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) src/Entity/Option.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) src/Entity/Option.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/Entity/CreditCard.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) src/Entity/Address.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Entity/Product.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Doctrine/Functions/Mysql/Rand.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Lib/Mapper.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/AbstractPromotionDTOBuilder.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/ActionHandler/CatalogPromotion/CreateCatalogPromotionHandler.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/OptionDTOBuilder.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Action/Product/AddTagToProductCommand.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Action/Product/RemoveImageFromProductCommand.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Action/Tag/AddOptionToTagCommand.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Action/Tag/RemoveImageFromTagCommand.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) src/ActionResponse/CartPriceRule/ListCartPriceRulesResponse.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) src/ActionResponse/Product/GetProductsByIdsResponse.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/ActionResponse/Product/GetProductsByTagResponse.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/ActionResponse/Shipment/GetLowestShipmentRatesByDeliveryMethodResponse.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) src/ActionResponse/Tag/GetTagsByIdsResponse.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Entity/EventGeneratorTrait.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Entity/Attribute.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartItemDTOBuilder.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartPriceRuleProductItemDTOBuilder.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartPriceRuleTagItemDTOBuilder.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/ImageDTOBuilder.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/OptionDTOBuilder.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/UserLoginDTOBuilder.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) src/ActionHandler/Attachment/MarkAttachmentLockedHandler.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 9) src/ActionHandler/Attribute/GetAttributeHandler.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/ActionHandler/Attribute/UpdateAttributeHandler.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) src/ActionHandler/Option/UpdateOptionValueHandler.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/ActionHandler/Product/CreateProductHandler.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/ActionHandler/Product/GetProductsByIdsHandler.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/ActionHandler/Product/SetDefaultImageForProductHandler.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/ActionHandler/TaxRate/CreateStateTaxRateHandler.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/ActionResponse/CatalogPromotion/ListCatalogPromotionsResponse.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/Entity/CreatedTrait.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Entity/Product.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/AttributeDTOBuilder.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartItemOptionProductDTOBuilder.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartItemTextOptionValueDTOBuilder.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/ProductAttributeDTOBuilder.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 5) src/EntityRepository/CatalogPromotionRepository.php
  • D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/ActionHandler/CartPriceRule/CreateCartPriceRuleHandler.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testHandle tests/ActionHandler/Inventory/AdjustInventoryHandlerTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testHandle tests/ActionHandler/Order/ImportOrdersFromCSVHandlerTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testHandle tests/ActionHandler/Product/DeleteProductHandlerTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testHandle tests/ActionHandler/Tag/DeleteTagHandlerTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testHandle tests/ActionHandler/TaxRate/DeleteTaxRateHandlerTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testLoginFailsWithWrongEmail tests/ActionHandler/User/LoginHandlerTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testLoginFailsWithWrongPassword tests/ActionHandler/User/LoginHandlerTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testLoginFailsWithInactiveUser tests/ActionHandler/User/LoginHandlerTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testSetNegativePercentValueFails tests/Entity/AbstractPromotionTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testSetPercentValueOver100Fails tests/Entity/AbstractPromotionTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testInvalidNegativeQuantity tests/Entity/CartItemTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testAddAttachmentFails tests/Entity/CartItemTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testDeleteCartItemMissing tests/Entity/CartTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testAddCouponWithDuplicateCouponThrowsException tests/Entity/CartTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testAddCouponWithNonStackableCouponThrowsException tests/Entity/CartTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testAddCouponWithSecondStackableCouponThrowsException tests/Entity/CartTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testAddCouponWithFirstStackableCouponThrowsException tests/Entity/CartTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testRemoveCouponMissingThrowsException tests/Entity/CartTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testCreateByIdThrowsExceptionWhenInvalid tests/Entity/DeliveryMethodTypeTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testCreateByIdThrowsExceptionWhenInvalid tests/Entity/InventoryTransactionTypeTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testCreateByIdThrowsExceptionWhenInvalid tests/Entity/OptionTypeTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testAddAttachmentFails tests/Entity/OrderItemTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testAddAttachmentFailsWithNoProduct tests/Entity/OrderItemTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testCreateByIdThrowsExceptionWhenInvalid tests/Entity/OrderStatusTypeTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testSetNameThrowsException tests/Entity/ProductQuantityDiscountTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testCreateByIdThrowsExceptionWhenInvalid tests/Entity/PromotionTypeTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testGetFullPathFails tests/Entity/RemoteManagedFileTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testCreateByIdThrowsExceptionWhenInvalid tests/Entity/ShipmentCarrierTypeTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testCreateByIdThrowsExceptionWhenInvalid tests/Entity/TextOptionTypeTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testCreateByIdThrowsExceptionWhenInvalid tests/Entity/UserLoginResultTypeTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testCreateByIdThrowsExceptionWhenInvalid tests/Entity/UserStatusTypeTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testCreateByIdThrowsExceptionWhenInvalid tests/Entity/UserTokenTypeTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testInvalidCartPriceRuleItemThrowsException tests/EntityDTO/Builder/DTOBuilderFactoryTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testInvalidPaymentThrowsException tests/EntityDTO/Builder/DTOBuilderFactoryTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testCRUD tests/EntityRepository/AttachmentRepositoryTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testFindOneByIdThrowsException tests/EntityRepository/AttachmentRepositoryTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testCRUD tests/EntityRepository/AttributeRepositoryTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testFindOneByIdThrowsException tests/EntityRepository/AttributeRepositoryTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testFindOneByIdThrowsException tests/EntityRepository/AttributeValueRepositoryTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testCRUD tests/EntityRepository/CartPriceRuleRepositoryTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testCRUD tests/EntityRepository/CartRepositoryTest.php
  • D10 · No assertions: testCRUD tests/EntityRepository/CatalogPromotionRepositoryTest.php

A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €18,000–€92,000
Cost to rebuild€18,000–€92,000 (0.2–0.6 person-years (306–971 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.9× (at 64% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeMedium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.4 person-years of build effort (about ~€55,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 49% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.9× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.

1
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.
+10.2 pts · Low effort · Knowledge Freshness
2
Port the existing pipeline to a CI service that is still operating — the build and test steps are already specified — and remove the dead configuration and its badge so the repository stops advertising a gate that no longer exists.
+14.4 pts · Medium effort · CI/CD gates
3
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 each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
+10.2 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.4 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 49%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.4 person-years rebuild (30,791 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 49%
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Port the existing pipeline to a CI service that is still operating — the build and test steps are already specified — and remove the dead configuration and its badge so the repository stops advertising a gate that no longer exists. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Port the existing pipeline to a CI service that is still operating — the build and test steps are already specified — and remove the dead configuration and its badge so the repository stops advertising a gate that no longer exists.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

71 modules, 276 dependencies. 1 dependency cycle across 13 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 31 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →1 Entity2 EntityDTO.Builder3 EntityRepository4 Lib.ShipmentGateway5 Lib.Authorization6 Service.Import7 Lib.Command8 Lib.Query9 Service10 ActionHandler.Configuration11 ActionHandler.Inventory12 ActionHandler.TaxRate13 Lib14 EntityDTO15 Action.Attachment16 Action.Attribute17 Action.Cart18 Action.CartPriceRule19 Action.CatalogPromotion20 Action.Coupon21 Action.Option22 Action.Order23 Action.Product24 Action.Shipment25 Action.Tag26 Action.User27 Action.Warehouse28 ActionHandler.Attachment29 ActionHandler.Attribute30 ActionHandler.Cart31 ActionHandler.CartPriceRule32 ActionHandler.CatalogPromotion33 ActionHandler.Coupon34 ActionHandler.Option35 ActionHandler.Order36 ActionHandler.Product37 ActionHandler.Shipment38 ActionHandler.Tag39 ActionHandler.User40 ActionHandler.Warehouse
1 Entity37
2 EntityDTO.Builder2012012
3 EntityRepository6720
4 Lib.ShipmentGateway524
5 Lib.Authorization22
6 Service.Import8
7 Lib.Command14
8 Lib.Query13
9 Service382534168
10 ActionHandler.Configuration12211
11 ActionHandler.Inventory1111
12 ActionHandler.TaxRate18871
13 Lib16131441
14 EntityDTO1
15 Action.Attachment772
16 Action.Attribute174102
17 Action.Cart133152
18 Action.CartPriceRule7281
19 Action.CatalogPromotion12231
20 Action.Coupon12231
21 Action.Option310295
22 Action.Order5453
23 Action.Product96104
24 Action.Shipment3447
25 Action.Tag9393
26 Action.User6332
27 Action.Warehouse5593
28 ActionHandler.Attachment57727
29 ActionHandler.Attribute14151284113
30 ActionHandler.Cart314161336116
31 ActionHandler.CartPriceRule215108210
32 ActionHandler.CatalogPromotion275325
33 ActionHandler.Coupon1255326
34 ActionHandler.Option21912102112
35 ActionHandler.Order589354219
36 ActionHandler.Product6201596515
37 ActionHandler.Shipment43373427
38 ActionHandler.Tag3171293112
39 ActionHandler.User37916329
40 ActionHandler.Warehouse1512116512
Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself
…klabs.kommerce.Entity…rce.EntityDTO.Builder…erce.EntityRepository…e.Lib.ShipmentGateway…rce.Lib.Authorization…mmerce.Service.Import….kommerce.Lib.Command…bs.kommerce.Lib.Query…labs.kommerce.Service…Handler.Configuration…tionHandler.Inventory…ActionHandler.TaxRateinklabs.kommerce.Lib…bs.kommerce.EntityDTO…rce.Action.Attachment…erce.Action.Attribute….kommerce.Action.Cart….Action.CartPriceRule…tion.CatalogPromotion…ommerce.Action.Coupon…ommerce.Action.Option…kommerce.Action.Order…mmerce.Action.Product…merce.Action.Shipment…s.kommerce.Action.Tag….kommerce.Action.User…erce.Action.Warehouse…ionHandler.Attachment…tionHandler.Attribute…ce.ActionHandler.Cart…Handler.CartPriceRule…dler.CatalogPromotion….ActionHandler.Coupon….ActionHandler.Option…e.ActionHandler.Order…ActionHandler.Product…ctionHandler.Shipment…rce.ActionHandler.Tag…ce.ActionHandler.User…tionHandler.Warehouse…klabs.kommerce.Entity1…rce.EntityDTO.Builder2…erce.EntityRepository3…e.Lib.ShipmentGateway4…rce.Lib.Authorization5…mmerce.Service.Import6….kommerce.Lib.Command7…bs.kommerce.Lib.Query8…labs.kommerce.Service9…Handler.Configuration10…tionHandler.Inventory11…ActionHandler.TaxRate12inklabs.kommerce.Lib13…bs.kommerce.EntityDTO14…rce.Action.Attachment15…erce.Action.Attribute16….kommerce.Action.Cart17….Action.CartPriceRule18…tion.CatalogPromotion19…ommerce.Action.Coupon20…ommerce.Action.Option21…kommerce.Action.Order22…mmerce.Action.Product23…merce.Action.Shipment24…s.kommerce.Action.Tag25….kommerce.Action.User26…erce.Action.Warehouse27…ionHandler.Attachment28…tionHandler.Attribute29…ce.ActionHandler.Cart30…Handler.CartPriceRule31…dler.CatalogPromotion32….ActionHandler.Coupon33….ActionHandler.Option34…e.ActionHandler.Order35…ActionHandler.Product36…ctionHandler.Shipment37…rce.ActionHandler.Tag38…ce.ActionHandler.User39…tionHandler.Warehouse40372012012672052422814133825341681221111111887116131441177217410213315272811223112231310295545396104344793936332559357727141512841133141613361162151082102753251255326219121021125893542196201596515433734273171293112379163291512116512+31 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 95% · Exemplary ·

The Good
D1 · PHP Cyclomatic Complexity 8.7 D2 · PHP Cognitive Complexity 10.0 D3 · PHP God Classes 9.2 D4 · PHP Code Duplication 9.1 D17 · PHP Explicit Debt 9.9

At a glance — Architecture · 99% · Exemplary ·

The Good
D35 · PHP Change Coupling 9.8 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.9

At a glance — Maturity · 58% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2 ·

The Good
D15 · PHP Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · PHP Documentation Quality 9.0 D21 · PHP Naming Consistency 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Ugly
D34 · PHP Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 49% · Adequate · gated by P1, P3 ·

The Good
D9 · PHP Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · PHP Test Quality 7.9 D12 · PHP Dependency Hygiene 10.0 D13 · PHP Secret Scanning 10.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 8.0
The Ugly
P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 3.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 97% · Exemplary ·

The Good
D28 · PHP Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · PHP Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D30 · PHP Dependency Vulnerabilities 8.6 D43 · PHP Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · PHP Platform End-of-Life 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components5High / Critical

Roadmap

First, migrate the build pipeline to an active CI service and remove the obsolete configuration to restore reliable automated gates. Next, address the dormant codebase issues and update the changelog to ensure release history is accurate and current. Then, document key architectural decisions in a structured format to preserve design context and rationale. Finally, improve test reliability by adding assertions to the identified failing test files.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.+10.2 ptsLowKnowledge Freshness
Port the existing pipeline to a CI service that is still operating — the build and test steps are already specified — and remove the dead configuration and its badge so the repository stops advertising a gate that no longer exists.+14.4 ptsMediumCI/CD gates
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 each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).+10.2 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub.+7.1 ptsMediumRelease Hygiene
Resolve the 92 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with LocalFileManagerTest.php (7), CartTest.php (6), TagRepositoryTest.php (4).+4.6 ptsMediumTest Quality
Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2).+1.3 ptsLowDocumentation Quality
Resolve the 1 Mapper.getHandler (cyclomatic 50) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Mapper.php.+0.4 ptsMediumCyclomatic Complexity
Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2).+0.2 ptsLowDependency Vulnerabilities

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 123 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 0% slop · 4% mixed · 96% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED4.6MixedDependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
src/Service/InventoryService.php6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tests/EntityRepository/InventoryLocationRepositoryTest.php6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tests/EntityRepository/PaymentRepositoryTest.php6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tests/EntityRepository/AttributeValueRepositoryTest.php6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tests/Lib/LocalFileManagerTest.php7.0Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: testSaveGifFileFails
src/Entity/Address.php7.1Near-cleanCode Duplication: Edited copy of a member (37 corresponding lines)
tests/Entity/CartTest.php7.1Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: testDeleteCartItemMissing
src/Entity/Product.php7.2Near-cleanGod Classes: TooManyMethods: Product
tests/EntityRepository/TagRepositoryTest.php7.2Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: testCRUD
src/Lib/Mapper.php7.4Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: Mapper.getHandler (cyclomatic 50)
src/Entity/Option.php7.4Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (15 lines × 2)
tests/ActionHandler/User/LoginHandlerTest.php7.4Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: testLoginFailsWithWrongEmail
tests/EntityRepository/InventoryTransactionRepositoryTest.php7.4Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: testCRUD
tests/Service/KommerceTest.php7.4Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: testSetupSqlLogger
src/Entity/Image.php7.8Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (16–19 lines × 3)
src/EntityDTO/Builder/OptionDTOBuilder.php7.8Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (7 lines × 2)
tests/Entity/AbstractPromotionTest.php7.8Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: testSetNegativePercentValueFails
tests/Entity/CartItemTest.php7.8Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: testInvalidNegativeQuantity
tests/Entity/OrderItemTest.php7.8Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: testAddAttachmentFails

How the grades work

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

Critical — 4

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

Serious — 179

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

Minor — 10

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

Could not be resolved — 44

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

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 24 of 27 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 27 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D9D10D12D13D15D17D19D21D28D29D30D34D35D43D44AX10M1M2M3M4P1P3P6

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. 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, 187 of 193 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. 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.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivySecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0c836-e44d-7c2b-baff-87fe074a897b.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

  • D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.php) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (Clover XML — with Xdebug (`XDEBUG_MODE=coverage`) or PCOV installed, `vendor/bin/phpunit --coverage-clover coverage.xml`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (Clover XML — with Xdebug (`XDEBUG_MODE=coverage`) or PCOV installed, `vendor/bin/phpunit --coverage-clover coverage.xml`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
  • D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.php) but the built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem, so flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • D14 License Compliance — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 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 (composer.json), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
  • D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (3 contributor(s) across 1411 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 100% of the history; the other 2 hold 0% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: D22 has no public-API collector for any other ecosystem, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `.idea/fileTemplates/internal/PHP Class.php`, `.idea/fileTemplates/internal/PHP Interface.php`, `.idea/fileTemplates/internal/PHP Trait.php` produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
  • AX3 Project dependency cycles — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over which project references which — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • AX4 Dependency direction — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the direction each project reference points — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • AX8 Test isolation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over which projects are test projects, and what they reference — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
  • C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
  • C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
  • C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
  • ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
  • X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • 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 (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
  • 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").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • 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.
  • D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Mapper.getHandler at 50.

Mapper.getHandler (cyclomatic 50)src/Lib/Mapper.php:95

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Mapper.getHandler (cyclomatic 50) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Mapper.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

D3 · God Classes9.2 / 10Stronggated by 5 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

5 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: DTOBuilderFactory · ×4src/EntityDTO/Builder/DTOBuilderFactory.php:76
MethodTooLong: Mapper.getHandlersrc/Lib/Mapper.php:95

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with DTOBuilderFactory.php, Product.php, Order.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Mapper.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D4 · Code Duplication9.1 / 10Stronggated by 57 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

56 duplicated block group(s) detected. One further row reports members as variants of one another; it aggregates block groups already counted above and is not itself counted.

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×8src/ActionHandler/CatalogPromotion/CreateCatalogPromotionHandler.php:40
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×4src/Doctrine/Functions/Mysql/Distance.php:27
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×4src/Doctrine/Functions/Mysql/Rand.php:17
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×4src/Action/Product/AddTagToProductCommand.php:18
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×3src/Entity/CreditCard.php:32

+ 25 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 8 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with OptionDTOBuilder.php (2), CreateCatalogPromotionHandler.php, CartPriceRuleProductItemDTOBuilder.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Distance.php, Option.php, ShipmentLabel.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Rand.php, Mapper.php, Attribute.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.

Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.

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

671 test methods: 671 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality7.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.

Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 92 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 671 tests.

No assertions: testHandle · ×92tests/ActionHandler/Inventory/AdjustInventoryHandlerTest.php:21

What to do

  1. Resolve the 92 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with LocalFileManagerTest.php (7), CartTest.php (6), TagRepositoryTest.php (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (92 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.

Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.

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

0 outdated, 0 abandoned direct Composer dependencies. PLATFORM requirements (php, ext-*, lib-*) are deliberately not graded here: they name the runtime rather than a Packagist package, so there is no release for them to be behind — whether that runtime is still supported is a separate question with a separate remedy. Development requirements are excluded, because a consumer never installs them. A newer release is reported only where this repository's OWN constraint already admits it, so the remedy is `composer update` and never a manifest edit. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt9.9 / 10Stronggated by 19 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

19 deducted task-comment markers across 30791 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.9. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×19src/Entity/ProductAttribute.php:38

What to do

  1. Resolve the 19 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with InventoryLocationRepositoryTest.php (3), InventoryService.php (2), ProductAttribute.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (19 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D19 · Documentation QualityExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

Zen Kommerce Core's documentation is excellent: a README with badges and an overview of SOLID design principles, coverage, and PSR compliance; a dedicated architecture/DesignPatterns section covering the Command, Query, Decorator, Mediator, Iterator, Strategy, Facade, Builder, AbstractFactory patterns; and detailed pattern examples for each. The project's repository-wide XML-doc coverage is visible in the README but not shown by the clip marker.

Documentation: no installation or build instructions · ×2README.md

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities8.6 / 10Adequategated by 2 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir/Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.

Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex, Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

5 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 3 low.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 Low CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Low vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.

Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

77 of 77 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/EntityDTO/Builder/DTOBuilderFactoryInterface.php. Counted over 77 of the 761 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D35 · Change Coupling9.8 / 10Adequategated by 2 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: ImportOrderService.php↔ImportUserService.php 70%; CommandBus.php↔QueryBus.php 64%; ImportOrderItemService.php↔ImportOrderService.php 60%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: CommandBus.php ↔ QueryBus.php · ×2src/Lib/Command/CommandBus.php
Change coupling: UserRole.php ↔ UserToken.php · ×3src/Entity/UserRole.php
Change coupling clique: ImportOrderItemService.php, ImportOrderService.php, ImportUserService.phpsrc/Service/Import/ImportOrderItemService.php

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with CommandBus.php, UserRepository.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with UserRole.php, UserLogin.php, CreditPayment.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Change coupling clique finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with ImportOrderItemService.php. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D43 · Malicious Dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.

Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.

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

No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 0 platform declaration(s) and 10 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
M1 · Documentation (README)8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, 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 each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

P1 · CI/CD gates3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • The pipeline is well-formed, but the only CI definition is `.travis.yml`, and its `README.md` build badge still points at `travis-ci.org` — a service shut down in June 2021. No other CI is configured in this repository, so nothing has been building or testing changes here since that shutdown — the steps below describe a gate that is not running. Porting it is mostly mechanical: the build and test commands already written here are what a replacement pipeline would run.

What to do

  • Port the existing pipeline to a CI service that is still operating — the build and test steps are already specified — and remove the dead configuration and its badge so the repository stops advertising a gate that no longer exists.
P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add phpstan or psalm (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 472 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

  • Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: phpstan or psalm — 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.
P6 · Release Hygiene8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • The changelog this check read carries 1 versioned entry, against a bar of 3. Counted as either an `x.y.z` string or a version-shaped section heading (`## [1.2.0]`, `## V14.x.x`, `## Updates in 8.0.x`), whichever is the larger — so a log sectioned by minor series counts its sections, not its individual patch numbers. Entries recorded somewhere this check does not read — release notes generated at tag time from a generator config it did not recognise, or a log kept outside the repository — are not counted here, and this row is about what is re-findable in the tree rather than about how often you release.

What to do

  • Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub.

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health95%ExemplarySolid.
Architecture99%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity58%Adequate — gated by D34, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness49%Adequate — gated by P1, P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security97%ExemplarySolid.
Not evidenced — 5 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

  • 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.
  • 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
Not included — 83 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
  • 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.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — no .php test runner
  • D14 License Compliance — Package manifest not parsed for licence data — analyzer language-coverage gap
  • D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
  • D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • 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 — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.php) 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 — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 3 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
  • 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). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
  • 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.
  • 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 CS/VB/GO/SCALA/SWIFT/DART class graph, and this repository's production source is .php, 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
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (2 aggregate root(s) (types guarding their own state behind command methods — this language has no AggregateRoot base to inherit))
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (4 PHP aggregate(s) recording domain events (recordThat/apply))
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, 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.
  • 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 (Clover XML — with Xdebug (`XDEBUG_MODE=coverage`) or PCOV installed, `vendor/bin/phpunit --coverage-clover coverage.xml`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — 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.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • 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
  • X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • 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
  • X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • 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
  • X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 4 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×2
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: CommandBus.php ↔ QueryBus.php src/Lib/Command/CommandBus.php — `src/Lib/Command/CommandBus.php` (context Command) and `src/Lib/Query/QueryBus.php` (context Query) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 64% of the time (7 of the 11 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `7b3a7196` Cleaning up TODOs from #98.; `6b2678ad` Updating README.md to explain Use Case Actions.; `652c86de` Extracting Mapper to an interface. — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: UserRepository.php ↔ UserService.php src/EntityRepository/UserRepository.php — `src/EntityRepository/UserRepository.php` (context EntityRepository) and `src/Service/UserService.php` (context Service) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 59% of the time (10 of the 17 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 10 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `f2fc3a9e` Migrate remaining repositories to use UUID.; `0e301469` Adding token login to login record.; `1740b34c` Adding fullName. Fixing psr2. — run `git show` on any of them.
Serious — 179 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×92
  • No assertions: testHandle tests/ActionHandler/Inventory/AdjustInventoryHandlerTest.php:21 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testHandle tests/ActionHandler/Order/ImportOrdersFromCSVHandlerTest.php:21 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testHandle tests/ActionHandler/Product/DeleteProductHandlerTest.php:23 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testHandle tests/ActionHandler/Tag/DeleteTagHandlerTest.php:17 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testHandle tests/ActionHandler/TaxRate/DeleteTaxRateHandlerTest.php:15 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testLoginFailsWithWrongEmail tests/ActionHandler/User/LoginHandlerTest.php:49 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testLoginFailsWithWrongPassword tests/ActionHandler/User/LoginHandlerTest.php:68 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testLoginFailsWithInactiveUser tests/ActionHandler/User/LoginHandlerTest.php:88 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testSetNegativePercentValueFails tests/Entity/AbstractPromotionTest.php:173 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testSetPercentValueOver100Fails tests/Entity/AbstractPromotionTest.php:183 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testInvalidNegativeQuantity tests/Entity/CartItemTest.php:64 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testAddAttachmentFails tests/Entity/CartItemTest.php:161 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testDeleteCartItemMissing tests/Entity/CartTest.php:78 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testAddCouponWithDuplicateCouponThrowsException tests/Entity/CartTest.php:104 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testAddCouponWithNonStackableCouponThrowsException tests/Entity/CartTest.php:120 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testAddCouponWithSecondStackableCouponThrowsException tests/Entity/CartTest.php:139 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testAddCouponWithFirstStackableCouponThrowsException tests/Entity/CartTest.php:158 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testRemoveCouponMissingThrowsException tests/Entity/CartTest.php:210 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testCreateByIdThrowsExceptionWhenInvalid tests/Entity/DeliveryMethodTypeTest.php:28 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testCreateByIdThrowsExceptionWhenInvalid tests/Entity/InventoryTransactionTypeTest.php:38 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testCreateByIdThrowsExceptionWhenInvalid tests/Entity/OptionTypeTest.php:28 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testAddAttachmentFails tests/Entity/OrderItemTest.php:150 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testAddAttachmentFailsWithNoProduct tests/Entity/OrderItemTest.php:171 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testCreateByIdThrowsExceptionWhenInvalid tests/Entity/OrderStatusTypeTest.php:34 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testSetNameThrowsException tests/Entity/ProductQuantityDiscountTest.php:37 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • + 67 more in this group — see findings.md.
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×19
  • TodoComment src/Entity/ProductAttribute.php:38 — // TODO: Implement loadValidatorMetadata() method. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Entity/OrderItemTextOptionValue.php:30 — // TODO: Implement loadValidatorMetadata() method. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Entity/OrderItemOptionValue.php:33 — // TODO: Implement loadValidatorMetadata() method. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Entity/OrderItemOptionProduct.php:33 — // TODO: Implement loadValidatorMetadata() method. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Entity/CartItemOptionValue.php:24 — // TODO: Implement loadValidatorMetadata() method. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Entity/CartItemOptionProduct.php:25 — // TODO: Implement loadValidatorMetadata() method. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/EntityDTO/Builder/CatalogPromotionDTOBuilder.php:38 — // TODO: — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/EntityRepository/TaxRateRepository.php:66 — // TODO: Investigate whether we should throw exception — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Service/OrderService.php:184 — // TODO: Move this responsibility to the Attachment Service without a cyclic dependency — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Service/InventoryService.php:38 — // TODO: Investigate throwing exception in this case — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Service/InventoryService.php:69 — // TODO: Investigate throwing exception in this case — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/ActionHandler/Option/CreateOptionValueHandlerTest.php:35 — // TODO: Test all attributes — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/ActionHandler/Product/CreateProductQuantityDiscountHandlerTest.php:53 — // TODO: Fix these: — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/EntityRepository/PaymentRepositoryTest.php:116 — // TODO: test CreditPayment — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/EntityRepository/InventoryLocationRepositoryTest.php:64 — // TODO: Compare $originalInventoryLocation->getWarehouse()->getId() — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/EntityRepository/InventoryLocationRepositoryTest.php:65 — // TODO: to $inventoryLocation->getWarehouse()->getId() — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/EntityRepository/InventoryLocationRepositoryTest.php:66 — // TODO: for query performance optimization — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/EntityRepository/AttributeValueRepositoryTest.php:11 — // TODO: Remove. The responsibility for this entity is cascaded in the Attribute Repository — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/Service/OrderServiceTest.php:222 — // TODO: Test reserveProductsFromInventory — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×8
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/ActionHandler/CatalogPromotion/CreateCatalogPromotionHandler.php:40 — src/ActionHandler/CatalogPromotion/CreateCatalogPromotionHandler.php:40-46 | src/ActionHandler/CatalogPromotion/UpdateCatalogPromotionHandler.php:39-45 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/ActionHandler/CatalogPromotion/CreateCatalogPromotionHandler.php:40` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/OptionDTOBuilder.php:29 — src/EntityDTO/Builder/OptionDTOBuilder.php:29-35 | src/EntityDTO/Builder/TextOptionDTOBuilder.php:26-32 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartPriceRuleProductItemDTOBuilder.php:23 — src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartPriceRuleProductItemDTOBuilder.php:23-29 | src/EntityDTO/Builder/ProductAttributeDTOBuilder.php:36-43 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartPriceRuleTagItemDTOBuilder.php:23 — src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartPriceRuleTagItemDTOBuilder.php:23-29 | src/EntityDTO/Builder/CatalogPromotionDTOBuilder.php:47-54 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/OptionDTOBuilder.php:99 — src/EntityDTO/Builder/OptionDTOBuilder.php:99-105 | src/EntityDTO/Builder/TextOptionDTOBuilder.php:42-48 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/UserLoginDTOBuilder.php:41 — src/EntityDTO/Builder/UserLoginDTOBuilder.php:41-47 | src/EntityDTO/Builder/UserTokenDTOBuilder.php:39-45 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/ActionHandler/Attribute/UpdateAttributeHandler.php:32 — src/ActionHandler/Attribute/UpdateAttributeHandler.php:32-38 | src/ActionHandler/Coupon/UpdateCouponHandler.php:34-40 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/ActionResponse/CatalogPromotion/ListCatalogPromotionsResponse.php:45 — src/ActionResponse/CatalogPromotion/ListCatalogPromotionsResponse.php:45-51 | src/ActionResponse/Order/GetOrdersByUserResponse.php:36-42 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×4
  • TooManyMethods: DTOBuilderFactory src/EntityDTO/Builder/DTOBuilderFactory.php:76 — TooManyMethods — 70 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 40 over it, 2.33× the bar. Most of these members implement Builder.DTOBuilderFactoryInterface (70 of 70 members), so moving them onto a smaller type would remove them from that contract rather than reduce it. To reduce it, split the contract instead: give each cohesive group of operations its own smaller interface and its own implementing type. Where the contract has to stay whole, move the work behind these members into collaborator types, so what is left here is a forward per member rather than a responsibility per member.
  • TooManyMethods: Product src/Entity/Product.php:11 — TooManyMethods — 50 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 20 over it, 1.67× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: Order src/Entity/Order.php:12 — TooManyMethods — 41 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 11 over it, 1.37× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: OrderItem src/Entity/OrderItem.php:9 — TooManyMethods — 33 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 3 over it, 1.10× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Doctrine/Functions/Mysql/Distance.php:27 — src/Doctrine/Functions/Mysql/Distance.php:27-41 | src/Doctrine/Functions/Sqlite/Distance.php:27-41 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Entity/Option.php:49 — src/Entity/Option.php:49-63 | src/Entity/TextOption.php:40-54 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Entity/Option.php` and `src/Entity/TextOption.php` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Entity/ShipmentLabel.php:47 — src/Entity/ShipmentLabel.php:47-61 | src/Entity/ShipmentRate.php:59-73 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Lib/PaymentGateway/ChargeRequest.php:25 — src/Lib/PaymentGateway/ChargeRequest.php:25-39 | src/Lib/PaymentGateway/ChargeResponse.php:56-70 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Doctrine/Functions/Mysql/Rand.php:17 — src/Doctrine/Functions/Mysql/Rand.php:17-26 | src/Doctrine/Functions/Sqlite/Rand.php:17-26 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Lib/Mapper.php:211 — src/Lib/Mapper.php:211-220 | src/Lib/Mapper.php:225-234 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Entity/Attribute.php:44 — src/Entity/Attribute.php:44-53 | src/Entity/AttributeValue.php:49-58 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartItemOptionProductDTOBuilder.php:25 — src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartItemOptionProductDTOBuilder.php:25-34 | src/EntityDTO/Builder/ShipmentItemDTOBuilder.php:22-31 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Action/Product/AddTagToProductCommand.php:18 — src/Action/Product/AddTagToProductCommand.php:18-29 | src/Action/Product/RemoveTagFromProductCommand.php:18-29 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Action/Product/AddTagToProductCommand.php` and `src/Action/Product/RemoveTagFromProductCommand.php` as WHOLE FILES: 94% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Action/Product/AddTagToProductCommand.php:18` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Action/Product/RemoveImageFromProductCommand.php:18 — src/Action/Product/RemoveImageFromProductCommand.php:18-29 | src/Action/Product/SetDefaultImageForProductCommand.php:18-29 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Action/Product/RemoveImageFromProductCommand.php` and `src/Action/Product/SetDefaultImageForProductCommand.php` as WHOLE FILES: 94% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Action/Product/RemoveImageFromProductCommand.php:18` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Action/Tag/AddOptionToTagCommand.php:18 — src/Action/Tag/AddOptionToTagCommand.php:18-29 | src/Action/Tag/RemoveOptionFromTagCommand.php:18-29 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Action/Tag/AddOptionToTagCommand.php` and `src/Action/Tag/RemoveOptionFromTagCommand.php` as WHOLE FILES: 94% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Action/Tag/AddOptionToTagCommand.php:18` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Action/Tag/RemoveImageFromTagCommand.php:18 — src/Action/Tag/RemoveImageFromTagCommand.php:18-29 | src/Action/Tag/SetDefaultImageForTagCommand.php:18-29 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Action/Tag/RemoveImageFromTagCommand.php` and `src/Action/Tag/SetDefaultImageForTagCommand.php` as WHOLE FILES: 94% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Action/Tag/RemoveImageFromTagCommand.php:18` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×3
  • Change coupling: UserRole.php ↔ UserToken.php src/Entity/UserRole.php — `src/Entity/UserRole.php` and `src/Entity/UserToken.php` change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `e7c6fdc8` #24: Migrate Users.; `0e3bccd9` #4: Creating UserDTO.; `8ba56ca1` Adding validation to Address, UserRole, UserToken, and Warehouse. — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: UserLogin.php ↔ UserRole.php src/Entity/UserLogin.php — `src/Entity/UserLogin.php` and `src/Entity/UserRole.php` change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `f2fc3a9e` Migrate remaining repositories to use UUID.; `e7c6fdc8` #24: Migrate Users.; `0e3bccd9` #4: Creating UserDTO. — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: CreditPayment.php ↔ Order.php src/Entity/CreditPayment.php — `src/Entity/CreditPayment.php` and `src/Entity/Order.php` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `53d78b15` #24: Adding Payment uuid migration.; `6a203228` Adding validation to ChargeResponse, Payment (cash/credit), and Order. (at that commit the file was still `src/Entity/Payment/Credit.php`); `7e7f6826` Adding new views for orders. (at that commit the file was still `src/Entity/Payment/Credit.php`) — run `git show` on any of them.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/Entity/CreditCard.php:32 — src/Entity/CreditCard.php:32-44 | src/Lib/PaymentGateway/ChargeResponse.php:42-54 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Entity/CreditCard.php:32` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/ActionResponse/Shipment/GetLowestShipmentRatesByDeliveryMethodResponse.php:15 — src/ActionResponse/Shipment/GetLowestShipmentRatesByDeliveryMethodResponse.php:15-27 | src/ActionResponse/Shipment/GetShipmentRatesResponse.php:15-27 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ActionResponse/Shipment/GetLowestShipmentRatesByDeliveryMethodResponse.php` and `src/ActionResponse/Shipment/GetShipmentRatesResponse.php` as WHOLE FILES: 94% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/ActionResponse/Shipment/GetLowestShipmentRatesByDeliveryMethodResponse.php:15` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/ActionHandler/Product/GetProductsByIdsHandler.php:45 — src/ActionHandler/Product/GetProductsByIdsHandler.php:45-57 | src/ActionHandler/Product/GetRandomProductsHandler.php:45-57 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/ActionHandler/Product/SetDefaultImageForProductHandler.php:38 — src/ActionHandler/Product/SetDefaultImageForProductHandler.php:38-42 | src/ActionHandler/Tag/SetDefaultImageForTagHandler.php:38-42 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/Entity/CreatedTrait.php:14 — src/Entity/CreatedTrait.php:14-18 | src/Entity/UpdatedTrait.php:15-19 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `null` to `DateTime $created =` in one and `DateTime $updated =` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/ActionHandler/CartPriceRule/CreateCartPriceRuleHandler.php:34 — src/ActionHandler/CartPriceRule/CreateCartPriceRuleHandler.php:34-38 | src/ActionHandler/CartPriceRule/UpdateCartPriceRuleHandler.php:35-39 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) src/Service/InventoryService.php:37 — src/Service/InventoryService.php:37-56 | src/Service/InventoryService.php:68-87 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Service/InventoryService.php:37` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) src/ActionResponse/Product/GetProductsByIdsResponse.php:19 — src/ActionResponse/Product/GetProductsByIdsResponse.php:19-38 | src/ActionResponse/Product/GetRelatedProductsResponse.php:19-38 — before extracting anything, compare `src/ActionResponse/Product/GetProductsByIdsResponse.php` and `src/ActionResponse/Product/GetRelatedProductsResponse.php` as WHOLE FILES: 96% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/ActionResponse/Product/GetProductsByIdsResponse.php:19` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) src/Entity/Address.php:46 — src/Entity/Address.php:46-59 | src/Entity/OrderAddress.php:61-74 | src/Entity/OrderItem.php:73-86 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Entity/Address.php` and `src/Entity/OrderAddress.php` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 94 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Entity/Address.php:46` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) src/Entity/Option.php:48 — src/Entity/Option.php:48-61 | src/Entity/OptionValue.php:40-53 | src/Entity/TextOption.php:39-52 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Entity/Option.php` and `src/Entity/TextOption.php` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/AbstractPromotionDTOBuilder.php:30 — src/EntityDTO/Builder/AbstractPromotionDTOBuilder.php:30-38 | src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartPriceRuleDTOBuilder.php:25-33 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/AttributeDTOBuilder.php:56 — src/EntityDTO/Builder/AttributeDTOBuilder.php:56-64 | src/EntityDTO/Builder/ProductDTOBuilder.php:216-224 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/ActionResponse/Product/GetProductsByTagResponse.php:24 — src/ActionResponse/Product/GetProductsByTagResponse.php:24-50 | src/ActionResponse/Product/GetRandomProductsResponse.php:19-34 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/ActionResponse/Product/GetProductsByTagResponse.php:24` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Entity/EventGeneratorTrait.php:12 — src/Entity/EventGeneratorTrait.php:12-27 | src/Event/RaiseEventTrait.php:13-31 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Entity/EventGeneratorTrait.php:12` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartItemDTOBuilder.php:40 — src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartItemDTOBuilder.php:40-45 | src/EntityDTO/Builder/ProductDTOBuilder.php:169-174 | src/EntityDTO/Builder/ProductQuantityDiscountDTOBuilder.php:36-41 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/ActionHandler/Product/CreateProductHandler.php:31 — src/ActionHandler/Product/CreateProductHandler.php:31-36 | src/ActionHandler/Tag/CreateTagHandler.php:31-36 | src/ActionHandler/User/CreateUserHandler.php:31-36 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/ImageDTOBuilder.php:39 — src/EntityDTO/Builder/ImageDTOBuilder.php:39-44 | src/EntityDTO/Builder/InventoryTransactionDTOBuilder.php:47-53 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Entity/Product.php:314 — src/Entity/Product.php:314-319 | src/Entity/Tag.php:103-108 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Entity/Product.php` and `src/Entity/Tag.php` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 35 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/ActionHandler/TaxRate/CreateStateTaxRateHandler.php:31 — src/ActionHandler/TaxRate/CreateStateTaxRateHandler.php:31-38 | src/ActionHandler/TaxRate/CreateZip5TaxRateHandler.php:31-38 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/EntityDTO/Builder/ProductAttributeDTOBuilder.php:52 — src/EntityDTO/Builder/ProductAttributeDTOBuilder.php:52-60 | src/EntityDTO/Builder/ProductQuantityDiscountDTOBuilder.php:49-56 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Mapper.getHandler (cyclomatic 50) · ×1
  • Mapper.getHandler (cyclomatic 50) src/Lib/Mapper.php:95 — Mapper.getHandler has cyclomatic complexity 50 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×1
  • MethodTooLong: Mapper.getHandler src/Lib/Mapper.php:95 — MethodTooLong — getHandler runs 101 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1 over it, 1.01× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling clique · ×1
  • Change coupling clique: ImportOrderItemService.php, ImportOrderService.php, ImportUserService.php src/Service/Import/ImportOrderItemService.php — 3 files — `src/Service/Import/ImportOrderItemService.php`, `src/Service/Import/ImportOrderService.php`, `src/Service/Import/ImportUserService.php` — all change together with no explicit dependency: a fully-connected co-change clique, not 3 separate couplings. They share one concern (thin parallel siblings over a common abstraction), so extract the shared part into ONE unit and the whole clique's coupling clears at once — you do not need to break each pair individually.
D4 · Code Duplication · Edited copy of a member (37 corresponding lines) · ×1
  • Edited copy of a member (37 corresponding lines) src/Entity/Address.php:43 — src/Entity/Address.php:43-85 | src/Entity/OrderAddress.php:55-105 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 37 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (34–35 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (34–35 lines × 2) src/Entity/Address.php:43 — src/Entity/Address.php:43-77 | src/Entity/OrderAddress.php:59-92 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Entity/Address.php` and `src/Entity/OrderAddress.php` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 94 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16–19 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16–19 lines × 3) src/Entity/Image.php:46 — src/Entity/Image.php:46-64 | src/Entity/Price.php:36-51 | src/Entity/Product.php:112-130 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Entity/Image.php:46` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src/Entity/Product.php:101 — src/Entity/Product.php:101-118 | src/Entity/Tag.php:67-84 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Entity/Product.php` and `src/Entity/Tag.php` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 35 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14–17 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14–17 lines × 3) src/Entity/Address.php:59 — src/Entity/Address.php:59-72 | src/Entity/CreditCard.php:39-55 | src/Entity/OrderAddress.php:74-87 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Entity/Address.php` and `src/Entity/CreditCard.php` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Entity/Address.php:59` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 4) src/Entity/Address.php:57 — src/Entity/Address.php:57-72 | src/Entity/Configuration.php:32-45 | src/Entity/CreditCard.php:41-55 | src/Entity/OrderAddress.php:72-87 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Entity/Address.php` and `src/Entity/CreditCard.php` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) src/Entity/Image.php:44 — src/Entity/Image.php:44-58 | src/Entity/OptionValue.php:45-59 | src/Entity/Product.php:110-124 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/Entity/OptionValue.php:45` calls `addPropertyConstraint`, `Length` and `src/Entity/Image.php:44` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) src/Entity/Option.php:49 — src/Entity/Option.php:49-61 | src/Entity/OptionValue.php:41-53 | src/Entity/Product.php:106-118 | src/Entity/TextOption.php:40-52 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Entity/Option.php` and `src/Entity/TextOption.php` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/Entity/Product.php:106` calls `addPropertyConstraint`, `Length` and `src/Entity/Option.php:49` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) src/Entity/Address.php:59 — src/Entity/Address.php:59-70 | src/Entity/CreditCard.php:39-49 | src/Entity/OrderAddress.php:74-85 | src/Lib/PaymentGateway/ChargeRequest.php:29-39 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Entity/Address.php` and `src/Entity/CreditCard.php` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Entity/Address.php:59` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Entity/Product.php:324 — src/Entity/Product.php:324-334 | src/Entity/Tag.php:113-123 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Entity/Product.php` and `src/Entity/Tag.php` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 35 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) src/ActionResponse/CartPriceRule/ListCartPriceRulesResponse.php:20 — src/ActionResponse/CartPriceRule/ListCartPriceRulesResponse.php:20-42 | src/ActionResponse/Coupon/ListCouponsResponse.php:20-42 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/ActionResponse/CartPriceRule/ListCartPriceRulesResponse.php:20` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) src/ActionResponse/Tag/GetTagsByIdsResponse.php:15 — src/ActionResponse/Tag/GetTagsByIdsResponse.php:15-28 | src/ActionResponse/Tag/ListTagsResponse.php:20-42 | src/ActionResponse/TaxRate/ListTaxRatesResponse.php:15-27 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/ActionResponse/Tag/GetTagsByIdsResponse.php:15` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) src/ActionHandler/Attachment/MarkAttachmentLockedHandler.php:32 — src/ActionHandler/Attachment/MarkAttachmentLockedHandler.php:32-37 | src/ActionHandler/Attachment/MarkAttachmentNotVisibleHandler.php:32-37 | src/ActionHandler/Attachment/MarkAttachmentUnlockedHandler.php:32-37 | src/ActionHandler/Attachment/MarkAttachmentVisibleHandler.php:32-37 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 4 call sites, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 9) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 9) src/ActionHandler/Attribute/GetAttributeHandler.php:39 — src/ActionHandler/Attribute/GetAttributeHandler.php:39-49 | src/ActionHandler/Attribute/GetAttributeValueHandler.php:39-49 | src/ActionHandler/CartPriceRule/GetCartPriceRuleHandler.php:39-49 | src/ActionHandler/CatalogPromotion/GetCatalogPromotionHandler.php:39-49 | src/ActionHandler/Coupon/GetCouponHandler.php:39-49 | src/ActionHandler/Shipment/GetShipmentTrackerHandler.php:39-49 | src/ActionHandler/User/GetUserHandler.php:39-49 | src/ActionHandler/Warehouse/GetInventoryLocationHandler.php:39-49 | src/ActionHandler/Warehouse/GetWarehouseHandler.php:39-49 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 9 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 9 times. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) src/ActionHandler/Option/UpdateOptionValueHandler.php:39 — src/ActionHandler/Option/UpdateOptionValueHandler.php:39-45 | src/ActionHandler/Product/UpdateProductHandler.php:31-35 | src/ActionHandler/Tag/UpdateTagHandler.php:31-35 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartItemTextOptionValueDTOBuilder.php:24 — src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartItemTextOptionValueDTOBuilder.php:24-30 | src/EntityDTO/Builder/CartPriceRuleDiscountDTOBuilder.php:24-30 | src/EntityDTO/Builder/OptionProductDTOBuilder.php:26-32 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 5) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 5) src/EntityRepository/CatalogPromotionRepository.php:29 — src/EntityRepository/CatalogPromotionRepository.php:29-36 | src/EntityRepository/CouponRepository.php:37-44 | src/EntityRepository/InventoryTransactionRepository.php:55-62 | src/EntityRepository/OptionRepository.php:27-34 | src/EntityRepository/TextOptionRepository.php:11-18 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 5 call sites, so a change lands once. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
P1 · CI/CD gates · CI pipeline targets a decommissioned service · ×1
  • CI pipeline targets a decommissioned service — The pipeline is well-formed, but the only CI definition is `.travis.yml`, and its `README.md` build badge still points at `travis-ci.org` — a service shut down in June 2021. No other CI is configured in this repository, so nothing has been building or testing changes here since that shutdown — the steps below describe a gate that is not running. Porting it is mostly mechanical: the build and test commands already written here are what a replacement pipeline would run.
Minor — 10 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×2
  • Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md — There are no installation/build/run or setup instructions anywhere among the 11 README files. Add a short install section covering composer, dependencies, and how to run tests.
  • Documentation: no usage examples README.md — The README is an overview with design-pattern examples but no runnable usage code or 'how to run it' guidance. Add a Usage section showing one or two concrete commands, such as how to dispatch a CreateStateTaxRateCommand and assert the result.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Low CVE · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Low vulnerability · ×1
  • REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 77 of 77 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 77 separate risks. Counted over 77 of the 761 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1
  • No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, 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.
P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1
  • No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add phpstan or psalm (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 472 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
P6 · Release Hygiene · Changelog looks stale/thin · ×1
  • Changelog looks stale/thin — The changelog this check read carries 1 versioned entry, against a bar of 3. Counted as either an `x.y.z` string or a version-shaped section heading (`## [1.2.0]`, `## V14.x.x`, `## Updates in 8.0.x`), whichever is the larger — so a log sectioned by minor series counts its sections, not its individual patch numbers. Entries recorded somewhere this check does not read — release notes generated at tag time from a generator config it did not recognise, or a log kept outside the repository — are not counted here, and this row is about what is re-findable in the tree rather than about how often you release.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-4123e035cbc74121894adf802e8c56f1/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-4123e035cbc74121894adf802e8c56f1/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .0artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner --format json --recursive .5artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 3 file(s) — `.idea/fileTemplates/internal/PHP Class.php`, `.idea/fileTemplates/internal/PHP Interface.php`, `.idea/fileTemplates/internal/PHP Trait.php` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—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—
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-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 Confinementruntime-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 Enforcementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D43 · Malicious Dependenciesosv-scanner—osv-scanner --format json --recursive .0artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a0c836-e44d-7c2b-baff-87fe074a897b · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 4 · Warnings: 179 · Recommendations: 10 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 22-09-2026 @ 08:23 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md