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.
jgraph/drawio-desktop carries serious gaps (36%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (20%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Code Health (49%) is the next concern — changes there are slower and more error-prone.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package (Security & performance tooling); Automate deployment (Helm/Kubernetes manifests or a pipeline… (Deployment & Rollback).
For scale: — (~0 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly — (—). Approximate, ±~30%.
Code Health
49%
Weak · gated by D2, R1
Maturity
50%
Weak · gated by M2
Readiness
20% ⚠
Critical · gated by D8, D9, R4, P2, P3, P4
Security
65%
Adequate · gated by D29, D36
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 20% · 50% weightCode Health 49% · 27% weightMaturity 50% · 15% weightSecurity 65% · 8% weight
Raise Readiness 20 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 36 → ~53.
New since the last scan (37+)
- D2 · checkFileContent (cognitive 197) src/main/electron.js
- D2 · (anonymous) (cognitive 108) src/main/electron.js
- D2 · readPdfXml (cognitive 93) src/main/electron.js
- D2 · parseDrawioArgs (cognitive 58) src/main/args.js
- D2 · renderingFinishHandler (cognitive 27) src/main/electron.js
- D2 · processOneFile (cognitive 24) src/main/electron.js
- D2 · addDiagramAnnotations (cognitive 24) src/main/electron.js
- D2 · migrateLegacyRecentsOnce (cognitive 17) src/main/electron.js
- D2 · (anonymous) (cognitive 16) src/main/electron.js
- D8 · No automated tests
- D18 · Dimension evaluation failed
- D35 · Change coupling: args.js ↔ electron.js src/main/args.js
- D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] package-lock.json
- D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] package-lock.json
- R10 · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2 locations) src/test/cli-args.test.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 3 locations) src/test/cli-args.test.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) src/test/cli-args.test.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 5 locations) src/test/cli-args.test.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) src/test/cli-args.test.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) src/main/electron.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) src/main/electron.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 4 locations) src/test/cli-args.test.js
- R2 · Complex function checkFileContent (cyclomatic 156, cognitive 197) src/main/electron.js
- R2 · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 59, cognitive 108) src/main/electron.js
- R2 · Complex function readPdfXml (cyclomatic 34, cognitive 93) src/main/electron.js
- R2 · Complex function parseDrawioArgs (cyclomatic 25, cognitive 58) src/main/args.js
- R2 · Complex function renderingFinishHandler (cyclomatic 20, cognitive 27) src/main/electron.js
- R2 · Complex function addDiagramAnnotations (cyclomatic 20, cognitive 24) src/main/electron.js
- R4 · No test reaches this file src/main/electron.js
- R4 · No test reaches this file src/main/progress-bar.js
- R4 · No test reaches this file src/main/electron-preload.js
- R4 · No test reaches this file sync.cjs
- R4 · No test reaches this file src/main/disableUpdate.js
- R7 · Dead file (~113 LoC) src/main/electron-preload.js
- R7 · Dead file (~9 LoC) preload.js
- P2 · No structured logging
- P4 · No deployment automation
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
3
Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. The rest can wait behind it.
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Good
The Ugly
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 20 | High / Critical |
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 2 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, implement comprehensive logging using ILogger or Serilog across all projects to establish baseline observability. Next, integrate static application security testing and secret scanning into the build process to identify vulnerabilities early. Then, automate the deployment pipeline using tools like Helm or Kubernetes to ensure releases are repeatable and reversible. Finally, expand test coverage to include all production modules and resolve existing gaps in automated testing.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. | +17.3 pts | Low | Code Coverage |
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +17.3 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. | +19.8 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package. | +19.8 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Automate deployment (Helm/Kubernetes manifests or a pipeline deploy stage) so releases are repeatable and reversible. | +19.8 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry). | +19.4 pts | Medium | Test Coverage |
| Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies. | +16.1 pts | Medium | Dependency Hygiene |
| Add the missing tooling (eslint, tsc) as package.json scripts and run them in CI. | +15.1 pts | Medium | Tooling |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| .github/workflows/prepare-release.yml | 4.4 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: run-shell-injection |
| .github/workflows/personal-build.yml | 4.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/electron-builder-win.yml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/electron-builder.yml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| package-lock.json | 5.8 | Mixed | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: [GHSA redacted] |
| src/main/args.js | 6.3 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: parseDrawioArgs (cyclomatic 25) |
| src/main/electron.js | 7.0 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: checkFileContent (cyclomatic 156) |
| .github/workflows/stale.yml | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| README.md | 9.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: The README mentions releases but does not link to or describe the GitHub Actions workflow that actually builds and publishes binaries. |
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. 43 of 45 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — 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 — 45 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D8D9D12D13D15D16D19D21D26D27D28D29D33D34D35D36D37D38AX5M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4R1R10R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9X1X3X4
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, 50 of 59 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D18 Solution Shape — evaluation did not complete — Dimension evaluation failed — excluded from the score.
- 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.
- D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
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.
- D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- 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").
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- 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".
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
9 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was checkFileContent at 156.
checkFileContent (cyclomatic 156)src/main/electron.js:2974
(anonymous) (cyclomatic 59)src/main/electron.js:637
readPdfXml (cyclomatic 34)src/main/electron.js:2359
(anonymous) (cyclomatic 32)src/main/electron.js:3860
parseDrawioArgs (cyclomatic 25)src/main/args.js:183
What to do
- Resolve the 1 checkFileContent (cyclomatic 156) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with electron.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 (anonymous) (cyclomatic 59) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with electron.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 readPdfXml (cyclomatic 34) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with electron.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
14 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was checkFileContent at 197.
checkFileContent (cognitive 197)src/main/electron.js:2974
(anonymous) (cognitive 108)src/main/electron.js:637
readPdfXml (cognitive 93)src/main/electron.js:2359
parseDrawioArgs (cognitive 58)src/main/args.js:183
writePngWithText (cognitive 27)src/main/electron.js:1951
What to do
- Resolve the 1 checkFileContent (cognitive 197) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with electron.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 (anonymous) (cognitive 108) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with electron.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 readPdfXml (cognitive 93) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with electron.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
1 god class(es) detected.
FileTooLong: main/electron.jssrc/main/electron.js:0
What to do
- Resolve the 1 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with electron.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
0 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
What to do
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D8 · Code Coverage
No automated tests — the solution has no test code.
No automated tests
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
No test projects found.
No tests found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
Top hotspots: src/main/electron.js (41×156=6396); src/main/args.js (11×25=275)
Hotspot: src/main/electron.js src/main/electron.js
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with args.js, electron.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The documentation is clear and complete for an open-source diagramming desktop app: the README gives a one-paragraph overview plus Windows install notes, license, and security claims; RELEASE_PROCESS.md documents the full release process with tooling versions pinned, roles, and a detailed procedure (prepare-release, pre-release verification, audit, publish) that is clipped mid-sentence; BUILDING_FOR_PERSONAL_USE.md explains how to fork for personal use with an explicit unsigned opt-in plus clone/recursion steps. The three docs together cover the app's purpose, install, security, release process, and build for non-code contributors — a strong set.
The README mentions releases but does not link to or describe the GitHub Actions workflow that actually builds and publishes binaries.README.md
What to do
- Resolve the 1 The README mentions releases but does not link to or describe the GitHub… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
No projects to assess.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
Too little code to assess navigability.
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)
20 finding(s): 0 critical, 20 high, 0 medium, 0 low.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/electron-builder-win.yml:15
What to do
- Resolve the 20 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with prepare-release.yml (9), personal-build.yml (4), electron-builder-win.yml (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (20 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
Strongest change-coupling: args.js↔electron.js 75%
Change coupling: args.js ↔ electron.jssrc/main/args.js
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with args.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
Unpinned build actions
No build provenance
No artifact signing
No SBOM
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
2 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 0 low.
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] package-lock.json
What to do
- Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with package-lock.json (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
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
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
What to do
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
- A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (dotnet test / npm test / pytest / a test job) was matched — the gate may be running tests, or "test" may be incidental (a path, "latest", a reporter). Make the test step explicit so the gate is unambiguous.
What to do
- Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (e.g. `dotnet test`) and gate merges on it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing (CodeQL / security analyzers / codehealth) detected.
What to do
- Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- No Helm/Kubernetes/compose manifests or pipeline deploy stage found — releases appear manual, which is slower and riskier to reverse.
What to do
- Automate deployment (Helm/Kubernetes manifests or a pipeline deploy stage) so releases are repeatable and reversible.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R1 · Type Safety
- 0 typed · 11 plain JS
What to do
- Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R10 · Code Duplication
- src/test/cli-args.test.js:483 · src/test/cli-args.test.js:603 — cli-args.test.js:483
- src/test/cli-args.test.js:213 · src/test/cli-args.test.js:483 · src/test/cli-args.test.js:603 — cli-args.test.js:213
- src/test/cli-args.test.js:414 · src/test/cli-args.test.js:608 — cli-args.test.js:414
- src/test/cli-args.test.js:446 · src/test/cli-args.test.js:465 · src/test/cli-args.test.js:488 · src/test/cli-args.test.js:534 — cli-args.test.js:446
- src/test/cli-args.test.js:498 · src/test/cli-args.test.js:544 — cli-args.test.js:498
- src/main/electron.js:1329 · src/main/electron.js:1754 — electron.js:1329
- src/main/electron.js:3389 · src/main/electron.js:3601 — electron.js:3389
- src/test/cli-args.test.js:53 · src/test/cli-args.test.js:65 · src/test/cli-args.test.js:101 · src/test/cli-args.test.js:423 — cli-args.test.js:53
What to do
- Extract the duplicated blocks into shared functions/components.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Branch-heavy code is where defects cluster — extract decisions into smaller functions. (×8) — electron.js:2974, electron.js:637, electron.js:2359, …
What to do
- Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R3 · Large Files
- 1 file(s) over 400 lines
What to do
- Split the oversized components into smaller, focused ones.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R4 · Test Coverage
- No test imports this module directly or transitively — its behavior is unverified. (×6) — electron.js, progress-bar.js, electron-preload.js, …
What to do
- Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
Do you agree with this assessment?
R5 · Dependency Freshness
What to do
- Bump outdated dependencies to current versions to limit upgrade debt.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R6 · Tooling
- test ✓ · lint ✓ · typecheck ✗
What to do
- Add the missing tooling (eslint, tsc) as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R7 · Dead Code
- Unreachable from the 5 application, 0 tooling and 3 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on your build/type-check — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
- no import path from any entry point (5 application, 0 tooling, 3 test roots considered) (×2) — electron-preload.js, preload.js
What to do
- Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R8 · Dependency Hygiene
- Declared in the root/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — dead weight and attack surface. Verify against build tooling before removing. (×3)
What to do
- Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R9 · Circular Imports
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 49% | Weak — gated by D2, R1 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Maturity | 50% | Weak — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 20% | Critical — gated by D8, D9, R4, P2, P3, P4 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 65% | Adequate — gated by D29, D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 58 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX10 Code composition — no source files detected — code composition not applicable
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — no csproj graph available
- AX4 Dependency direction — no csproj graph available
- AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- D10 Test Quality — No tests in the analyzed solution to assess for quality.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D14 License Compliance — license scan produced no result — the tool ran but its JSON output could not be parsed; the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing
- D17 Explicit Debt — the C# workspace loaded 0 projects, so explicit-debt density could not be measured
- D18 Solution Shape — Dimension evaluation failed
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Zero projects and zero LoC mean the codebase is trivial and has no structure to justify boundaries.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — No .NET solution found; no NuGet dependencies to scan for vulnerabilities.
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — No production classes were analyzable, so cohesion (LCOM4) was not measured (the solution likely failed to load or has no production code).
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — no C# methods found
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 24 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/electron-builder-win.yml:15
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/electron-builder-win.yml:19
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/electron-builder-win.yml:59
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/electron-builder.yml:28
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/electron-builder.yml:32
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/electron-builder.yml:70
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/personal-build.yml:38
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/personal-build.yml:43
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/personal-build.yml:53
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/personal-build.yml:66
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/prepare-release.yml:42
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/prepare-release.yml:50
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/prepare-release.yml:57
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/prepare-release.yml:68
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/prepare-release.yml:130
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/prepare-release.yml:193
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/prepare-release.yml:250
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/prepare-release.yml:270
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/prepare-release.yml:363
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/stale.yml:21
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] package-lock.json
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] package-lock.json
D18 · Solution Shape
- Dimension evaluation failed
D8 · Code Coverage
- No automated tests
Warning — 28 finding(s)
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- Hotspot: src/main/electron.js src/main/electron.js
- Hotspot: src/main/args.js src/main/args.js
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- checkFileContent (cyclomatic 156) src/main/electron.js:2974
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- (anonymous) (cyclomatic 59) src/main/electron.js:637
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- readPdfXml (cyclomatic 34) src/main/electron.js:2359
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- (anonymous) (cyclomatic 32) src/main/electron.js:3860
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- parseDrawioArgs (cyclomatic 25) src/main/args.js:183
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- addDiagramAnnotations (cyclomatic 20) src/main/electron.js:2091
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- buildHtmlExport (cyclomatic 20) src/main/electron.js:2542
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- renderingFinishHandler (cyclomatic 20) src/main/electron.js:2685
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- processOneFile (cyclomatic 19) src/main/electron.js:948
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- checkFileContent (cognitive 197) src/main/electron.js:2974
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- (anonymous) (cognitive 108) src/main/electron.js:637
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- readPdfXml (cognitive 93) src/main/electron.js:2359
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- parseDrawioArgs (cognitive 58) src/main/args.js:183
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- writePngWithText (cognitive 27) src/main/electron.js:1951
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- renderingFinishHandler (cognitive 27) src/main/electron.js:2685
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- processOneFile (cognitive 24) src/main/electron.js:948
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- addDiagramAnnotations (cognitive 24) src/main/electron.js:2091
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- reply (cognitive 22) src/main/electron.js:1095
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- buildHtmlExport (cognitive 22) src/main/electron.js:2542
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- readPngXml (cognitive 21) src/main/electron.js:2268
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- startExport (cognitive 18) src/main/electron.js:1091
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- migrateLegacyRecentsOnce (cognitive 17) src/main/electron.js:299
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- (anonymous) (cognitive 16) src/main/electron.js:501
D3 · God Classes
- FileTooLong: main/electron.js src/main/electron.js:0
D35 · Change Coupling
- Change coupling: args.js ↔ electron.js src/main/args.js
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Unpinned build actions
Recommendation — 6 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D19 · Documentation Quality
- The README mentions releases but does not link to or describe the GitHub Actions workflow that actually builds and publishes binaries. README.md
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No build provenance
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No artifact signing
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No SBOM
D9 · Test Distribution
- No tests found
Info — 1 finding(s)
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 20 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet (no .NET solution) | — | dotnet (no .NET solution): not present in this environment | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 2 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |