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.
jjosh102/ObakiSite carries serious risk (37%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.
It is strongest in Architecture (91%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Code Health (82%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (27%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Accessibility (40%) is the next concern — it raises ongoing delivery and operational cost.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Raise unit-test coverage of the domain (aggregates (Domain vs controller coverage); 7 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene (Dependency Hygiene); readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green)… (Deployment & Rollback).
For scale: Small (~4,296 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (91%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
82%
Strong
Architecture
91% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
42%
Weak · gated by D34, M2
Readiness
27%
Weak · gated by D8, D12, P3, P9
Security
44%
Weak · gated by D30, D36, C1
Accessibility
40%
Weak · gated by AC3, AC4
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 27% · 46% weightAccessibility 40% · 25% weightMaturity 42% · 14% weightSecurity 44% · 8% weightCode Health 82% · 4% weightArchitecture 91% · 2% weight
Raise Readiness 27 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 37 → ~46.
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 18%Plumbing 73%Tests 8%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,300–€6,600
| Cost to rebuild | €1,300–€6,600 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 37% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 53% boilerplate · 27% straight-line · 20% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€4,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 27% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 7 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
2
Resolve the 3 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
3
Raise unit-test coverage of the domain (aggregates, value objects, domain services) — that's where correctness matters most.
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 Readiness at 27%. 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: Raise unit-test coverage of the domain (aggregates, value objects, domain services) — that's where correctness matters most. The rest can wait behind it.
Trajectory
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurityAccessibility
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
9.7
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
8.0
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
10.0
D39 · .NET / C#
IL Efficiency
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
X5 · Repo
Nullable reference types
8.0
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
8.4
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
10.0
D27 · .NET / C#
Navigability
9.4
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
7.3
AX1 · Repo
Captive dependencies
10.0
AX10 · Repo
Code composition
8.1
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX6 · Repo
Interface segregation
10.0
AX7 · Repo
Slice cohesion
10.0
AX8 · Repo
Test isolation
10.0
AX9 · Repo
CQS / query purity
10.0
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Bad
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Ugly
At a glance — Accessibility
The Ugly
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 32 | High / Critical |
| A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures | 2 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
Begin by raising unit-test coverage for the domain layer to ensure core correctness. Next, resolve the seven deprecated dependencies to improve system hygiene. Implement readiness and liveness probes with a rolling-update strategy to enable automatic rollback of bad releases. Maintain a changelog to track what ships in each release. Finally, adopt explicit, versioned schema migrations to manage database changes.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 7 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. | +10.4 pts | Low | Dependency Hygiene |
| Resolve the 3 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. | +7.9 pts | Low | Dependency Hygiene |
| Raise unit-test coverage of the domain (aggregates, value objects, domain services) — that's where correctness matters most. | +10.5 pts | Medium | Domain vs controller coverage |
| Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically. | +9.5 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. | +9.5 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Adopt EF migrations (dotnet ef migrations add + Migrate() on startup) as the explicit, versioned schema strategy — no migration mechanism was detected. | +8.7 pts | Medium | Schema migrations |
| Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production. | +8.6 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (e.g. `dotnet test`) and gate merges on it. | +6.6 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| src/Application/Features/Email/Services/EmailService.cs | 6.0 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Application/Features/Posts/Services/PostCosmosService.cs | 6.0 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Email/EmailServiceTests.cs | 6.4 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Animelist/GetAnimeListBySeasonAndYearTests.cs | 6.4 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| src/Application/Features/Animelist/Services/AnimeListService.cs | 6.7 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Application/Features/Email/Commands/SendEmail.cs | 6.7 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| Client/wwwroot/appsettings.json | 7.2 | Mixed | Secrets (history): Secret: generic-api-key |
| src/Client/Shared/Themes/Theme.cs | 7.3 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) |
| src/Application/Features/Authentication/Services/AuthService.cs | 7.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Application/Features/Chat/Services/ChatHubClient.cs | 7.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Application/Features/Posts/Commands/CreatePost.cs | 7.4 | Mixed | Change Coupling: Change coupling: CreatePost.cs ↔ UpdatePost.cs |
| test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Animelist/AnimeListServiceTests.cs | 7.5 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| src/Application/Shared/Behaviours/Validation/ValidationBehavior.cs | 7.7 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Api/Functions/AnimelistFunction.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Api/Functions/SignalRFunction.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Api/Program.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Application/Features/Animelist/DTO/AnimeListResponse.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Application/Infra/Data/Firebase/FirestoreProvider.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Application/Shared/DTO/Response/ApplicationResponse.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Application/Shared/Extensions/EmailServiceDependencies.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
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. 62 of 66 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 66 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D36D37D39AC2AC3AC4AC5AC6AC7AX1AX10AX3AX5AX6AX7AX8AX9C1GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6P7P8P9S1X1X2X3X4X5
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, 64 of 164 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
- 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").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A clean result is "no unlabelled native control found", not a labelling proof.
- AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
- AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
- AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
- 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.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
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
4 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Client/Shared/Themes/Theme.cs:51
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2)src/Client/Shared/Themes/Theme.cs:20
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2)src/Client/Pages/Posts/NewPost.razor:126
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
5 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Off the main sequence: ObakiSite.Application
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 15 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D8 · Code Coverage
Line coverage 3.4%, branch coverage 2.3%.
What to do
- 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
6 test methods: 6 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 6 tests.
Mock framework: Moq
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability
0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
40 outdated, 3 vulnerable, 7 deprecated packages.
Vulnerable: MailKit
Deprecated: AutoMapper.Extensions.Microsoft.DependencyInjection
Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.WebAssembly
What to do
- Resolve the 7 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
- Resolve the 3 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
- Enforce Dependency Hygiene 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?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 48 packages use a banned license.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
5 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/Client/Shared/Themes/Theme.cs.
Small-team knowledge concentration
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
39 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 4296 LoC (1.0/KLoC) → score 8.0.
TodoComment src/Api/Functions/AnimelistFunction.cs:28
CommentedOutCode test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Animelist/AnimeListServiceTests.cs:88
What to do
- Resolve the 24 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with PostCosmosService.cs (7), AuthService.cs (2), ChatHubClient.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (24 warning-level).
- Resolve the 15 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with EmailServiceTests.cs (8), GetAnimeListBySeasonAndYearTests.cs (6), AnimeListServiceTests.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 warning-level).
- Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
5 projects, 118 .cs files, 4695 hand-written lines of code (4296 production / 399 test), 4 inter-project edges.
Monorepo: only 1 of 3 solutions was scored
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The single README is a personal project description with two thin sections: ChatGPT integration citing Betalgo's GPT3 library and a brief mention of Blazored.TextEditor and QuillJS for rich text. It lacks any architecture or usage documentation, no license field beyond the MIT header, and no troubleshooting guidance. The absence of an architecture doc and zero XML docs makes it a one-file README that is not useful as a project reference.
No description of what ObakiSite does or its main features besides ChatGPT integration.README.md
The ChatGPT section only cites Betalgo.GPT3 without explaining how it is implemented on the site.README.md
XML-doc coverage: ObakiSite.Client src/Client/ObakiSite.Client.csproj
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No description of what ObakiSite does or its main features besides… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 The ChatGPT section only cites Betalgo.GPT3 without explaining how it is… 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?
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
4 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Typo in property name: 'HubConenctionId' (missing 'n' in Connection).
Typo in type name: 'UtilityExtenstions' (missing 'i' in Extensions).
Inconsistent verb form for checking existence: 'IsUserExist' (singular) vs potentially 'IsUserExists' or 'UserExists'. The current name 'IsUserExist' is grammatically awkward.
Inconsistent naming for success state: 'IsSuccess' (boolean property) vs 'Success' (method).
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Typo in property name finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Typo in type name finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Inconsistent verb form for checking existence finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
12 valuable / 3 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 3 shown with locations.
redundant comment src/Application/Shared/Behaviours/Validation/ValidationBehavior.cs:23
What to do
- Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with AnimeListServiceTests.cs (2), ValidationBehavior.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
1 of 5 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Split ObakiSite.Application
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Split ObakiSite.Application finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
96 % of calls cross a namespace and 12 % 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)
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
Secret: generic-api-keyClient/wwwroot/appsettings.json:2
Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
31 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 9 high, 22 medium, 0 low.
High CVE: AutoMapper 12.0.1
Medium CVE: BouncyCastle.Cryptography 2.2.1
What to do
- Resolve the 22 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (22 warning-level).
- Resolve the 9 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
17 of 17 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Client/Shared/Themes/Theme.cs.
Further orphaned files (smaller)
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
Strongest change-coupling: CreatePost.cs↔UpdatePost.cs 91%; DeletePost.cs↔UpdatePost.cs 91%; CreatePost.cs↔GetPostById.cs 85%
Change coupling: CreatePost.cs ↔ UpdatePost.cs src/Application/Features/Posts/Commands/CreatePost.cs
What to do
- Resolve the 10 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with CreatePost.cs (3), AnimeListService.cs, DeletePost.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 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 present but lists no reporting contact.
Disclosure policy has no reporting contact
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Disclosure policy has no reporting contact finding(s) in Vulnerability-disclosure Policy. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D39 · IL Efficiency
1 of 403 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.
IL efficiency: 1 authored method(s) exceed the IL budgetsrc/Client/Shared/Themes/Theme.cs:126
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AC2 · Forms & labels
- This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it. (×4) — EditPost.razor:19, EditPost.razor:41, NewPost.razor:18, …
- A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one). (×2) — EditPost.razor:66, NewPost.razor:65
- A link with no text, aria-label or labelled child (e.g. an icon-only link) has no accessible name, so assistive tech can't say where it goes. Add visible text or an aria-label. (×6) — ChatDemoLayout.razor:12, ChatGptLayout.razor:10, MainLayout.razor:13, …
What to do
- Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC3 · Page structure
- The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en"). — index.html:2
- user-scalable=no/0 or a maximum-scale below 2 stops low-vision users zooming to 200%. Remove the zoom restriction from the viewport meta. — index.html:5
What to do
- Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC4 · Keyboard semantics
- An <a> with no href, role or tabindex isn't focusable or keyboard-activatable. Give it a real href, or use a <button> for an action. — index.html:21
What to do
- Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC5 · ARIA correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC6 · Visual & motion safety
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC7 · A11y enforcement
- No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time.
What to do
- Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y (or vuejs-accessibility), assert with jest-axe / playwright-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX7 · Slice cohesion
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
- No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.
What to do
- Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). — ValidationBehavior.cs:58
What to do
- Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
- The root README is 70 words — likely missing build/run/architecture context.
What to do
- Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map.
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 5 of 5 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
- No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
What to do
- Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README omits the Azure Function project entirely
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README omits the Azure Function project entirely.
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
- Only 3/4 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.
- 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
- 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.
- Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
- Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience
Do you agree with this assessment?
P8 · Schema migrations
- EF Core is used but neither migrations nor EnsureCreated were detected — confirm how the production schema is created and evolved.
What to do
- Adopt EF migrations (dotnet ef migrations add + Migrate() on startup) as the explicit, versioned schema strategy — no migration mechanism was detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P9 · Domain vs controller coverage
- Domain coverage is 0% — the layer carrying the business rules is under-tested.
What to do
- Raise unit-test coverage of the domain (aggregates, value objects, domain services) — that's where correctness matters most.
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 24/70 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) — AnimelistFunction.cs:26, AuthenticationFunction.cs:29, AuthenticationFunction.cs:46, …
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
- 3/4 projects enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable>. NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
- ~0.0 `!` 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?
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
| Dimension | WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| AC2 · Forms & labels | 1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC3 · Page structure | 1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC4 · Keyboard semantics | 2.1.1, 2.4.3 | Partial signal |
| AC5 · ARIA correctness | 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC6 · Visual & motion safety | 1.4.3, 2.4.7 | Partial — literal CSS only |
| AC7 · A11y enforcement | enforcement — no page criterion | Enforcement posture (process) |
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 82% | Strong | Solid. |
| Architecture | 91% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 42% | Weak — gated by D34, M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 27% | Weak — gated by D8, D12, P3, P9 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 44% | Weak — gated by D30, D36, C1 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Accessibility | 40% | Weak — gated by AC3, AC4 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 30 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a vertical-slice + CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
- AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — no data
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
- C2 Access Controls — Partial workspace load — the web/host project 'ObakiSite - Backup.Application' present on disk did not load into the C# workspace (it failed to build/restore and was silently dropped), so its authorization signals were never scanned. The surviving documents carry no evidence for this control, but absence of evidence in an INCOMPLETE document set is not evidence the control is missing — the relevant middleware/attributes most plausibly live in the dropped project. This dimension is therefore Not-evidenced (excluded from the score) rather than asserting a confident negative. Restore/build that project (see diagnostics.md) so it loads and the dimension can be scored.
- 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 — 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.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- 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-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — only 1/3 markers (a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer)
- ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): a message-bus package; 17 CQRS handler(s)
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers 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
- 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.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
- X8 JS interop contract — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 13 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- High CVE: AutoMapper 12.0.1
- High CVE: MessagePack 2.1.90
- High CVE: MessagePack 2.1.90
- High CVE: MimeKit 4.1.0
- High CVE: System.Formats.Asn1 7.0.0
- High CVE: System.Text.Json 7.0.0
- High CVE: Azure.Identity 1.7.0
- High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0
- High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Vulnerable: MailKit
- Vulnerable: MimeKit
- Vulnerable: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt
D28 · Secrets (history)
- Secret: generic-api-key Client/wwwroot/appsettings.json:2
Warning — 85 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt
- TodoComment src/Api/Functions/AnimelistFunction.cs:28
- TodoComment src/Api/Functions/SignalRFunction.cs:14
- TodoComment src/Api/Program.cs:17
- TodoComment src/Application/Features/Animelist/DTO/AnimeListResponse.cs:5
- TodoComment src/Application/Features/Animelist/Services/AnimeListService.cs:20
- TodoComment src/Application/Features/Authentication/Services/AuthService.cs:53
- TodoComment src/Application/Features/Authentication/Services/AuthService.cs:86
- TodoComment src/Application/Features/Chat/Services/ChatHubClient.cs:66
- TodoComment src/Application/Features/Chat/Services/ChatHubClient.cs:73
- TodoComment src/Application/Features/Email/Commands/SendEmail.cs:23
- TodoComment src/Application/Features/Email/Services/EmailService.cs:47
- TodoComment src/Application/Features/Email/Services/EmailService.cs:79
- TodoComment src/Application/Features/Posts/Services/PostCosmosService.cs:27
- TodoComment src/Application/Features/Posts/Services/PostCosmosService.cs:40
- TodoComment src/Application/Features/Posts/Services/PostCosmosService.cs:54
- TodoComment src/Application/Features/Posts/Services/PostCosmosService.cs:65
- TodoComment src/Application/Features/Posts/Services/PostCosmosService.cs:79
- TodoComment src/Application/Features/Posts/Services/PostCosmosService.cs:93
- TodoComment src/Application/Features/Posts/Services/PostCosmosService.cs:122
- TodoComment src/Application/Infra/Data/Firebase/FirestoreProvider.cs:51
- TodoComment src/Application/Shared/Behaviours/Validation/ValidationBehavior.cs:44
- TodoComment src/Application/Shared/DTO/Response/ApplicationResponse.cs:125
- TodoComment src/Application/Shared/Extensions/EmailServiceDependencies.cs:22
- TodoComment test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Animelist/GetAnimeListBySeasonAndYearTests.cs:100
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium CVE: BouncyCastle.Cryptography 2.2.1
- Medium CVE: BouncyCastle.Cryptography 2.2.1
- Medium CVE: BouncyCastle.Cryptography 2.2.1
- Medium CVE: MailKit 4.1.0
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.1.90
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.1.90
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.1.90
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.1.90
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.1.90
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.1.90
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.1.90
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.1.90
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.1.90
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.1.90
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components 7.0.9
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 6.31.0
- Medium CVE: MimeKit 4.1.0
- Medium CVE: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 6.31.0
- Medium CVE: Azure.Identity 1.7.0
- Medium CVE: Azure.Identity 1.7.0
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components 7.0.0
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.Rest.ClientRuntime 2.3.21
D17 · Explicit Debt
- CommentedOutCode test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Animelist/AnimeListServiceTests.cs:88
- CommentedOutCode test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Animelist/GetAnimeListBySeasonAndYearTests.cs:27
- CommentedOutCode test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Animelist/GetAnimeListBySeasonAndYearTests.cs:59
- CommentedOutCode test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Animelist/GetAnimeListBySeasonAndYearTests.cs:90
- CommentedOutCode test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Animelist/GetAnimeListBySeasonAndYearTests.cs:120
- CommentedOutCode test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Animelist/GetAnimeListBySeasonAndYearTests.cs:1
- CommentedOutCode test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Animelist/GetAnimeListBySeasonAndYearTests.cs:22
- CommentedOutCode test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Email/EmailServiceTests.cs:75
- CommentedOutCode test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Email/EmailServiceTests.cs:82
- CommentedOutCode test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Email/EmailServiceTests.cs:128
- CommentedOutCode test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Email/EmailServiceTests.cs:1
- CommentedOutCode test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Email/EmailServiceTests.cs:31
- CommentedOutCode test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Email/EmailServiceTests.cs:53
- CommentedOutCode test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Email/EmailServiceTests.cs:109
- CommentedOutCode test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Email/EmailServiceTests.cs:133
D35 · Change Coupling
- Change coupling: CreatePost.cs ↔ UpdatePost.cs src/Application/Features/Posts/Commands/CreatePost.cs
- Change coupling: DeletePost.cs ↔ UpdatePost.cs src/Application/Features/Posts/Commands/DeletePost.cs
- Change coupling: CreatePost.cs ↔ GetPostById.cs src/Application/Features/Posts/Commands/CreatePost.cs
- Change coupling: CreatePost.cs ↔ DeletePost.cs src/Application/Features/Posts/Commands/CreatePost.cs
- Change coupling: GetPostById.cs ↔ GetPostSummaries.cs src/Application/Features/Posts/Queries/GetPostById.cs
- Change coupling: PostCosmosService.cs ↔ PostFirebaseService.cs src/Application/Features/Posts/Services/PostCosmosService.cs
- Change coupling: EmailService.cs ↔ UpdatePost.cs src/Application/Features/Email/Services/EmailService.cs
- Change coupling: AnimeListService.cs ↔ SendEmail.cs src/Application/Features/Animelist/Services/AnimeListService.cs
- Change coupling: UpdatePost.cs ↔ GetPostById.cs src/Application/Features/Posts/Commands/UpdatePost.cs
- Change coupling: SendEmail.cs ↔ UpdatePost.cs src/Application/Features/Email/Commands/SendEmail.cs
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Deprecated: AutoMapper.Extensions.Microsoft.DependencyInjection
- Deprecated: Betalgo.OpenAI.GPT3
- Deprecated: Blazored.LocalStorage
- Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions
- Deprecated: Microsoft.IdentityModel.Tokens
- Deprecated: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt
- Deprecated: xunit
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Client/Shared/Themes/Theme.cs:51
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Api/Functions/PostFunction.cs:36
D18 · Solution Shape
- Monorepo: only 1 of 3 solutions was scored
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Unpinned build actions
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Client/Shared/Themes/Theme.cs:20
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Client/Pages/Posts/NewPost.razor:126
D5 · Coupling
- Off the main sequence: ObakiSite.Application
Recommendation — 20 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value
- redundant comment src/Application/Shared/Behaviours/Validation/ValidationBehavior.cs:23
- redundant comment test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Animelist/AnimeListServiceTests.cs:77
- redundant comment test/ObakiSite.Tests/Features/Animelist/AnimeListServiceTests.cs:82
D16 · Bus Factor
- Small-team knowledge concentration
D19 · Documentation Quality
- No description of what ObakiSite does or its main features besides ChatGPT integration. README.md
D19 · Documentation Quality
- The ChatGPT section only cites Betalgo.GPT3 without explaining how it is implemented on the site. README.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- No ADRs found
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Typo in property name: 'HubConenctionId' (missing 'n' in Connection).
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Typo in type name: 'UtilityExtenstions' (missing 'i' in Extensions).
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Inconsistent verb form for checking existence: 'IsUserExist' (singular) vs potentially 'IsUserExists' or 'UserExists'. The current name 'IsUserExist' is grammatically awkward.
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Inconsistent naming for success state: 'IsSuccess' (boolean property) vs 'Success' (method).
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- Bounded contexts not declared
D26 · Project Cohesion
- Split ObakiSite.Application
D28 · Secrets (history)
- Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Further orphaned files (smaller)
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No build provenance
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No artifact signing
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No SBOM
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
- Disclosure policy has no reporting contact
D39 · IL Efficiency
- IL efficiency: 1 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget src/Client/Shared/Themes/Theme.cs:126
Info — 46 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.WebAssembly
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.WebAssembly.DevServer
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.SignalR.Client
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.SignalR.Protocols.MessagePack
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Http
- Outdated: MudBlazor
- Outdated: Newtonsoft.Json
- Outdated: Microsoft.Azure.Functions.Worker
- Outdated: Microsoft.Azure.Functions.Worker.ApplicationInsights
- Outdated: Microsoft.Azure.Functions.Worker.Extensions.Abstractions
- Outdated: Microsoft.Azure.Functions.Worker.Extensions.CosmosDB
- Outdated: Microsoft.Azure.Functions.Worker.Extensions.Http
- Outdated: Microsoft.Azure.Functions.Worker.Extensions.OpenApi
- Outdated: Microsoft.Azure.Functions.Worker.Extensions.SignalRService
- Outdated: Microsoft.Azure.Functions.Worker.Sdk
- Outdated: Microsoft.Azure.WebJobs.Extensions.SignalRService
- Outdated: Blazored.LocalStorage
- Outdated: FluentValidation.DependencyInjectionExtensions
- Outdated: Google.Cloud.Firestore
- Outdated: MailKit
- Outdated: MediatR
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Cosmos
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions
D19 · Documentation Quality
- XML-doc coverage: ObakiSite.Client src/Client/ObakiSite.Client.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: ObakiSite.AzureFunction src/Api/ObakiSite.AzureFunction.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: ObakiSite.Application src/Application/ObakiSite.Application.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: ObakiSite.WebApi src/WebApi/ObakiSite.WebApi.csproj
D10 · Test Quality
- Mock framework: Moq
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 . | 1 | 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 list ObakiSite..sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 31 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-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 | — |
| 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
Email — 16 field(s)
- EmailFunction._emailService src/Api/Functions/EmailFunction.cs:20
- ApplicationUser.Email src/Application/Domain/Entities/ApplicationUser.cs:20
- EmailMessage.SenderEmail src/Application/Domain/Entities/EmailMessage.cs:22
- EmailMessage.RecipientEmail src/Application/Domain/Entities/EmailMessage.cs:24
- CheckIfUserExist.Email src/Application/Features/Authentication/Commands/CheckIfUserExist.cs:10
- SendEmail.EmailMessage src/Application/Features/Email/Commands/SendEmail.cs:11
- EmailConstants.DefaultEmail src/Application/Features/Email/Constants/EmailConstants.cs:12
- EmailService._emailServiceOptions src/Application/Features/Email/Services/EmailService.cs:14
- FirebaseSettings.ClientEmail src/Application/Infra/Data/Firebase/FirebaseSettings.cs:21
- GoogleServiceAccount.ClientEmail src/Application/Shared/Constants/FirebaseConstants.cs:17
- HttpNameClientConstants.Email src/Application/Shared/Constants/HttpNameClientConstants.cs:14
- ApplicationUserDTO.Email src/Application/Shared/DTO/ApplicationUserDTO.cs:10
- EmailMessageDTO.SenderEmail src/Application/Shared/DTO/EmailMessageDTO.cs:9
- EmailMessageDTO.RecipientEmail src/Application/Shared/DTO/EmailMessageDTO.cs:11
- WebApiSettings.ClientEmail src/Application/Shared/Settings/WebApiSettings.cs:20
- EmailController._emailService src/WebApi/Controllers/EmailController.cs:11
Name — 1 field(s)
- GithubRepoInfo.FullName src/Application/Shared/DTO/GithubRepoInfo.cs:74