Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
jeangatto/ASP.NET-Core-Clean-Architecture-CQRS-Event-Sourcing is in a workable but fragile state (55%). It is not in crisis, but it carries material risk that makes change slower and incidents harder to contain if left unaddressed.
It is strongest in Event-Driven (100%) — its messaging keeps components properly decoupled. Architecture (88%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Security (46%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Readiness (55%) is the next concern — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Protect endpoints by default-deny (Access Controls); Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation); strongly-typed ids across the domain (Strongly-typed ids).
For scale: Small (~3,009 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Event-Driven foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
68%
Fair · gated by X5
Architecture
88%
Healthy
Maturity
61%
Fair · gated by M2
Readiness
55%
Fair · gated by P5
Security
46%
Poor · gated by C2
Domain Modelling
77%
Fair · gated by DM2
Event-Driven
100% ★
Exemplary
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 7%Plumbing 50%Tests 34%Generated 9%
New since the last scan (5+)
- D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Shop.Application src/Shop.Application/Shop.Application.csproj
- D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Shop.Domain src/Shop.Domain/Shop.Domain.csproj
- D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Shop.Query src/Shop.Query/Shop.Query.csproj
- D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Shop.Infrastructure src/Shop.Infrastructure/Shop.Infrastructure.csproj
- D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Shop.PublicApi src/Shop.PublicApi/Shop.PublicApi.csproj
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €2,200–€11,000
| Cost to rebuild | €2,200–€11,000 |
| Domain complexity | Very high |
| Quality factor | 0.8× (at 55% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 59% boilerplate · 29% straight-line · 12% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€6,500 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 46% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.
2
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
3
Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 46%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler. The rest can wait behind it.
Improving trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+22.5 pts/run over 3 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Architecture — module dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
10.0
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
10.0
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
10.0
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
10.0
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
10.0
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
10.0
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
10.0
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
8.7
D22 · .NET / C#
Internal API Consistency
10.0
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D27 · .NET / C#
Navigability
9.8
AX1 · Repo
Captive dependencies
10.0
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX4 · Repo
Dependency direction
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX6 · Repo
Interface segregation
10.0
AX8 · Repo
Test isolation
10.0
AX9 · Repo
CQS / query purity
10.0
The Bad
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
D9 · .NET / C#
Test Distribution
10.0
D10 · .NET / C#
Test Quality
10.0
D12 · .NET / C#
Dependency Hygiene
10.0
D13 · .NET / C#
Secret Scanning
10.0
ED5 · Repo
Idempotency
10.0
P1 · Repo
CI/CD gates
10.0
P2 · Repo
Observability
7.4
P4 · Repo
Deployment & Rollback
7.0
P7 · Repo
Outbound HTTP resilience
10.0
P8 · Repo
Schema migrations
10.0
At a glance — Security
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Domain Modelling
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Event-Driven
The Good
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 2 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, enforce default-deny access controls by applying authorization attributes or imperative guards to every handler. Next, establish an architecture decision record log to capture significant design choices and their rationale. Then, migrate to strongly-typed identifiers across the domain to prevent argument-related bugs. Finally, enable nullable reference types throughout the codebase and codify disaster recovery procedures, including backups and restore plans, to ensure data resilience.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler. | +3.6 pts | Medium | Access Controls |
| Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. | +2.9 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs. | +1.7 pts | Medium | Strongly-typed ids |
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +0.7 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`. | +1.3 pts | Medium | Nullable reference types |
| Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery. | +1.3 pts | Medium | DR & Backup |
| Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps. | +1.3 pts | Medium | Data Protection |
| Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. | +1.3 pts | Medium | Web-Security Posture |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| src/Shop.PublicApi/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Shop.Query/Data/Context/NoSqlDbContext.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: NoSqlDbContext (LCOM4 5) |
| src/Shop.Application/Shop.Application.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Shop.Application |
| src/Shop.Domain/Shop.Domain.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Shop.Domain |
| src/Shop.Query/Shop.Query.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Shop.Query |
| src/Shop.Infrastructure/Shop.Infrastructure.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Shop.Infrastructure |
| src/Shop.PublicApi/Shop.PublicApi.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Shop.PublicApi |
| src/Shop.Application/Customer/Handlers/CreateCustomerCommandHandler.cs | 9.3 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
| tests/Shop.IntegrationTests/Controllers/V1/CustomersControllerTests.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 60 of 63 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 63 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D15D17D18D19D20D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D31AX1AX10AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8AX9C1C2DM1DM2DM4DM5DM6DM8ED1ED2ED3ED4ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P5P7P8S1X1X2X3X4X5
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 21 of 44 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- 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.
- AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
- DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
- DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
- ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
8 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
1 of 9 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Low cohesion: NoSqlDbContext (LCOM4 5)src/Shop.Query/Data/Context/NoSqlDbContext.cs:19
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with NoSqlDbContext.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
67 test methods: 57 unit, 10 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Unit tests
Integration tests
BDD tests
E2E tests
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, 2 mock references across 67 tests.
Mock framework: NSubstitute
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
git history depth insufficient
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 2754 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0.
Justified suppressionsrc/Shop.Query/ConfigureServices.cs:81
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
8 projects, 122 .cs files, 4528 hand-written lines of code (2754 production / 1774 test), plus 499 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 24 inter-project edges.
Shop.Application (Production)src/Shop.Application/Shop.Application.csproj
Shop.Core (Production)src/Shop.Core/Shop.Core.csproj
Shop.Domain (Production)src/Shop.Domain/Shop.Domain.csproj
Shop.Query (Production)src/Shop.Query/Shop.Query.csproj
Shop.Infrastructure (Production)src/Shop.Infrastructure/Shop.Infrastructure.csproj
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The project has a README but lacks architectural documentation and has very low XML documentation coverage across most projects. The README provides basic context but lacks concrete setup instructions, dependency details, and architectural explanations. The low XML-doc coverage in key projects like Shop.Application and Shop.Query suggests poor inline documentation for public APIs.
Low XML-doc coverage: Shop.Application src/Shop.Application/Shop.Application.csproj
XML-doc coverage: Shop.Coresrc/Shop.Core/Shop.Core.csproj
What to do
- Resolve the 5 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with Shop.Application.csproj, Shop.Domain.csproj, Shop.Infrastructure.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were found.
No ADRs found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D22 · Internal API Consistency
No public API surface exposed; nothing to be inconsistent.
No exposed public API
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
4 valuable / 100 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 3 shown with locations.
redundant comment tests/Shop.IntegrationTests/Controllers/V1/CustomersControllerTests.cs:48
What to do
- Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with CreateCustomerCommandHandler.cs (2), CustomersControllerTests.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 8 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
96 % of calls cross a namespace and 5 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
2 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 1 low.
High IaC: DS-0002src/Shop.PublicApi/Dockerfile
Low IaC: DS-0026src/Shop.PublicApi/Dockerfile
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX1 · Captive dependencies
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX9 · CQS / query purity
Do you agree with this assessment?
C1 · Data Protection
What to do
- Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.
Do you agree with this assessment?
C2 · Access Controls
- No [Authorize]/policies and no imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) were found — endpoints may be unprotected.
What to do
- Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM1 · Aggregate boundaries
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM2 · Strongly-typed ids
- `BaseEvent.AggregateId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AggregateId { Guid Value }`). — BaseEvent.cs:19
What to do
- Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM4 · Rich vs anemic model
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM5 · Encapsulated state
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM8 · Value-object opportunities
- The parameters [email, firstname, id, lastname] travel together across 3 signatures and were confirmed as a coherent concept by the model — that's a missing value object. Extracting them into one type (e.g. `Address`, `Money`, `Coordinate`) removes repetition, prevents argument-order mistakes, and gives the concept a home for its rules. — CustomerCreatedEvent.cs:5
What to do
- Extract recurring primitive parameter clusters into value objects so the concept (and its rules) lives in one place.
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED1 · Handler temporal coupling
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED2 · Event/command shape
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED3 · Event naming
- `BaseEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — BaseEvent.cs:9
- `EventStore` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — EventStore.cs:8
- `CustomerBaseEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — CustomerBaseEvent.cs:6
- `CustomerCreatedEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — CustomerCreatedEvent.cs:5
- `CustomerDeletedEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — CustomerDeletedEvent.cs:5
- `CustomerUpdatedEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — CustomerUpdatedEvent.cs:5
What to do
- Name events in the past tense — they record facts that already happened.
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED4 · Outbox / dual-write
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED5 · Idempotency
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add a README to the 8 of 8 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
- No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
What to do
- Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- Only 4/5 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).
What to do
- Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
- Add OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (ActivitySource / AddMetrics) so requests are traceable across the system, not just health-probable.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
What to do
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.
What to do
- Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P5 · DR & Backup
- A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.
What to do
- Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience
Do you agree with this assessment?
P8 · Schema migrations
Do you agree with this assessment?
S1 · Web-Security Posture
- No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
- No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (−1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.)
What to do
- Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
- Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X2 · Cancellation propagation
- Only 9/36 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
- No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×25) — NoSqlDbContext.cs:61, NoSqlDbContext.cs:87, NoSqlDbContext.cs:115, …
What to do
- Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
X5 · Nullable reference types
- 0/6 projects enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable>. NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
- ~1.2 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.
What to do
- Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 68% | Fair — gated by X5 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 88% | Healthy | Solid. |
| Maturity | 61% | Fair — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 55% | Fair — gated by P5 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 46% | Poor — gated by C2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Domain Modelling | 77% | Fair — gated by DM2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Event-Driven | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
Not included — 38 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
- C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data (event-sourced storage — lifecycle is stream archival / event TTL, not row CASCADE) — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
- D11 Test Reliability — No tests discovered
- D14 License Compliance — License scan unavailable
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
- D35 Change Coupling — no production change history to mine for change-coupling
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — Not applicable
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — Not applicable
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
- D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
- DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — only 1/3 markers (an append-only event-store seam (IEventStore/Append-of-events))
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 1 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Shop.PublicApi/Dockerfile
Warning — 9 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality
- Low XML-doc coverage: Shop.Application src/Shop.Application/Shop.Application.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: Shop.Domain src/Shop.Domain/Shop.Domain.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: Shop.Query src/Shop.Query/Shop.Query.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: Shop.Infrastructure src/Shop.Infrastructure/Shop.Infrastructure.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: Shop.PublicApi src/Shop.PublicApi/Shop.PublicApi.csproj
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- git history depth insufficient
D16 · Bus Factor
- single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
- Low cohesion: NoSqlDbContext (LCOM4 5) src/Shop.Query/Data/Context/NoSqlDbContext.cs:19
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured
Recommendation — 17 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value
- redundant comment tests/Shop.IntegrationTests/Controllers/V1/CustomersControllerTests.cs:48
- redundant comment src/Shop.Application/Customer/Handlers/CreateCustomerCommandHandler.cs:25
- redundant comment src/Shop.Application/Customer/Handlers/CreateCustomerCommandHandler.cs:33
D11 · Test Reliability
- No tests discovered
D14 · License Compliance
- License scan unavailable
D20 · ADR Quality
- No ADRs found
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- Bounded contexts not declared
D25 · ADR Conformance
- no ADRs to check
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Shop.PublicApi/Dockerfile
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)
- Not applicable
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Not applicable
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
- Not applicable
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D7 · Architectural Integrity
- No checkable ADRs to assess
Info — 17 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality
- Mock framework: NSubstitute
- Mock framework: NSubstitute
D17 · Explicit Debt
- Justified suppression src/Shop.Query/ConfigureServices.cs:81
D18 · Solution Shape
- Shop.Application (Production) src/Shop.Application/Shop.Application.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Shop.Core (Production) src/Shop.Core/Shop.Core.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Shop.Domain (Production) src/Shop.Domain/Shop.Domain.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Shop.Query (Production) src/Shop.Query/Shop.Query.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Shop.Infrastructure (Production) src/Shop.Infrastructure/Shop.Infrastructure.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Shop.PublicApi (Production) src/Shop.PublicApi/Shop.PublicApi.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Shop.IntegrationTests (Test) tests/Shop.IntegrationTests/Shop.IntegrationTests.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Shop.UnitTests (Test) tests/Shop.UnitTests/Shop.UnitTests.csproj
D19 · Documentation Quality
- XML-doc coverage: Shop.Core src/Shop.Core/Shop.Core.csproj
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
D9 · Test Distribution
- Unit tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- Integration tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- BDD tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- E2E tests
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet: not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 2 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — 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 NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release). | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan. | 0 | — |
Appendix C — Personal-data map
Name — 9 field(s)
- CreateCustomerCommand.FirstName src/Shop.Application/Customer/Commands/CreateCustomerCommand.cs:15
- CreateCustomerCommand.LastName src/Shop.Application/Customer/Commands/CreateCustomerCommand.cs:20
- Customer.FirstName src/Shop.Domain/Entities/CustomerAggregate/Customer.cs:42
- Customer.LastName src/Shop.Domain/Entities/CustomerAggregate/Customer.cs:47
- CustomerBaseEvent.FirstName src/Shop.Domain/Entities/CustomerAggregate/Events/CustomerBaseEvent.cs:26
- CustomerBaseEvent.LastName src/Shop.Domain/Entities/CustomerAggregate/Events/CustomerBaseEvent.cs:27
- CustomerQueryModel.FirstName src/Shop.Query/QueriesModel/CustomerQueryModel.cs:29
- CustomerQueryModel.LastName src/Shop.Query/QueriesModel/CustomerQueryModel.cs:30
- CustomerQueryModel.FullName src/Shop.Query/QueriesModel/CustomerQueryModel.cs:35
Email — 8 field(s)
- CreateCustomerCommand.Email src/Shop.Application/Customer/Commands/CreateCustomerCommand.cs:28
- UpdateCustomerCommand.Email src/Shop.Application/Customer/Commands/UpdateCustomerCommand.cs:16
- RegexPatterns.EmailIsValid src/Shop.Core/RegexPatterns.cs:10
- Customer.Email src/Shop.Domain/Entities/CustomerAggregate/Customer.cs:57
- CustomerBaseEvent.Email src/Shop.Domain/Entities/CustomerAggregate/Events/CustomerBaseEvent.cs:29
- CustomerWriteOnlyRepository.ExistsByEmailCompiledAsync src/Shop.Infrastructure/Data/Repositories/CustomerWriteOnlyRepository.cs:15
- CustomerWriteOnlyRepository.ExistsByEmailAndIdCompiledAsync src/Shop.Infrastructure/Data/Repositories/CustomerWriteOnlyRepository.cs:22
- CustomerQueryModel.Email src/Shop.Query/QueriesModel/CustomerQueryModel.cs:32
Date of birth — 4 field(s)
- CreateCustomerCommand.DateOfBirth src/Shop.Application/Customer/Commands/CreateCustomerCommand.cs:32
- Customer.DateOfBirth src/Shop.Domain/Entities/CustomerAggregate/Customer.cs:62
- CustomerBaseEvent.DateOfBirth src/Shop.Domain/Entities/CustomerAggregate/Events/CustomerBaseEvent.cs:30
- CustomerQueryModel.DateOfBirth src/Shop.Query/QueriesModel/CustomerQueryModel.cs:33