Executive summary
jkazama/sample-boot-jpa scores 53 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while four of its five lenses score higher still: Security and Compliance at 95, rated Exemplary, and Architecture at 91, Maturity at 68 and Code Health at 60, all rated Adequate. Watchdog judged it as a template, sample or demo, meant to be read or copied, so the dimensions about building, releasing and running a product don't apply, and its lenses are rated against a lower bar. The score itself is worked out as for any repository.
The score is lower than those four because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 34 and is rated Adequate. Its CI/CD gates dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning and to add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 53 to about 67.
Three findings are critical: two in Secrets (history) and one in REDACTED Scanning.
Watchdog couldn't measure 18 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Internal API Consistency and Navigability, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 8,016 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €9,200, to rebuild.
Code Health
60
Adequate, capped by Nullable reference types
Architecture
91
Adequate, capped by Project Cohesion
Maturity
68
Adequate, capped by Knowledge Freshness
Production Readiness
34
Adequate, capped by CI/CD gates and Security & performance tooling
Security and Compliance
95 ★
Exemplary
How the score is built: what each lens counts for
The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Production Readiness 34 · counts for 47%Code Health 60 · counts for 26%Maturity 68 · counts for 14%Architecture 91 · counts for 8%Security and Compliance 95 · counts for 4%
If Production Readiness rose from 34 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 53 to about 67.
Code composition: what the lines of code are
Product code 84%Tests 16%
New since the last survey: 1 finding
- God Classes · TooManyMethods: DateUtils src/main/java/sample/util/DateUtils.java
Rebuild cost: about €9,200 · Estimate
| Cost to rebuild | €3,100 to €15,000, for 51 to 162 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer |
|---|---|
| Difficulty of the problem | Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write. |
| Quality factor | ×0.7 at a score of 53. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it. |
| Size | Small: 8,016 lines of product code |
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED.
2
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
3
Resolve the 33 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with JpqlBuilder.java, RestErrorAdvice.java, CashInOut.java.
Diagnosis: what the measurements show together
Where the investment is most exposed
This code would cost about €9,200 to build again, about 0.1 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 34 (Weak). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.
If you do one thing first
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 12 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 REDACTED Scanning findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
| uses → | 1 context.actor.type | 2 context.lock | 3 context.report.csv | 4 context.spring | 5 model.account.type | 6 model.asset.type | 7 model.constraints | 8 usecase.event.type | 9 util | 10 context.actor | 11 context.orm | 12 context.support | 13 context | 14 sample | 15 context.audit | 16 context.report | 17 model.master | 18 usecase.event | 19 context.mail | 20 model | 21 model.account | 22 model.asset | 23 usecase | 24 usecase.admin | 25 usecase.notification | 26 controller | 27 controller.admin | 28 controller.system |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 context.actor.type | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 context.lock | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 context.report.csv | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 context.spring | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 model.account.type | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 model.asset.type | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 model.constraints | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 usecase.event.type | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 util | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 context.actor | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 context.orm | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 context.support | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 context | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 sample | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 context.audit | 2 | 1 | 3 | 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 context.report | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 model.master | 4 | 1 | 5 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 usecase.event | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 context.mail | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 model | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 model.account | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 model.asset | 2 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 usecase | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 usecase.admin | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 usecase.notification | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 controller | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 27 controller.admin | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28 controller.system | 2 |
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
10→1 context.actor uses context.actor.type✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in context.actor uses a type in context.actor.type.
- The types involved
sample.context.actor.Actor→sample.context.actor.type.ActorRoleType
- Direction
- context.actor uses context.actor.type, so a change to context.actor.type can break context.actor, while a change to context.actor can't break context.actor.type.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: context.actor uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
10→13 context.actor uses context part of a loop✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in context.actor uses a type in context.
- The types involved
sample.context.actor.Actor→sample.context.Dto
- Direction
- context.actor uses context, so a change to context can break context.actor, while a change to context.actor can't break context.
- Position
- Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
11→2 context.orm uses context.lock✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in context.orm uses a type in context.lock.
- The types involved
sample.context.orm.TxTemplate→sample.context.lock.IdLockHandlersample.context.orm.TxTemplate→sample.context.lock.IdLockPair
- Direction
- context.orm uses context.lock, so a change to context.lock can break context.orm, while a change to context.orm can't break context.lock.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: context.orm uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
11→13 context.orm uses context part of a loop✕
- Connections
- 4 pairs of types, where a type in context.orm uses a type in context.
- The types involved
sample.context.orm.DefaultRepository→sample.context.DomainHelpersample.context.orm.OrmInterceptor→sample.context.Timestampersample.context.orm.OrmRepository→sample.context.DomainHelpersample.context.orm.OrmRepository→sample.context.GenericRepository
- Direction
- context.orm uses context, so a change to context can break context.orm, while a change to context.orm can't break context.
- Position
- Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
12→11 context.support uses context.orm✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in context.support uses a type in context.orm.
- The types involved
sample.context.support.AppSetting→sample.context.orm.OrmRepositorysample.context.support.AppSettingHandlerImpl→sample.context.orm.OrmRepository
- Direction
- context.support uses context.orm, so a change to context.orm can break context.support, while a change to context.support can't break context.orm.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: context.support uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
12→13 context.support uses context part of a loop✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in context.support uses a type in context.
- The types involved
sample.context.support.AppSetting→sample.context.DomainEntitysample.context.support.FindAppSetting→sample.context.Dto
- Direction
- context.support uses context, so a change to context can break context.support, while a change to context.support can't break context.
- Position
- Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
13→4 context uses context.spring✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in context uses a type in context.spring.
- The types involved
sample.context.DomainHelperProviderImpl→sample.context.spring.ObjectProviderAccessorsample.context.TimestamperImpl→sample.context.spring.ObjectProviderAccessor
- Direction
- context uses context.spring, so a change to context.spring can break context, while a change to context can't break context.spring.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: context uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
13→9 context uses util✕
- Connections
- 3 pairs of types, where a type in context uses a type in util.
- The types involved
sample.context.Timestamper→sample.util.TimePointsample.context.ValidationException→sample.util.Warnsample.context.ValidationException→sample.util.Warns
- Direction
- context uses util, so a change to util can break context, while a change to context can't break util.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: context uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
13→10 context uses context.actor✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in context uses a type in context.actor.
- The types involved
sample.context.DomainHelper→sample.context.actor.Actor
- Direction
- context uses context.actor, so a change to context.actor can break context, while a change to context can't break context.actor.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: context uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
13→12 context uses context.support✕
- Connections
- 5 pairs of types, where a type in context uses a type in context.support.
- The types involved
sample.context.DomainHelper→sample.context.support.AppSettingHandlersample.context.DomainHelper→sample.context.support.IdGeneratorsample.context.DomainHelperProviderImpl→sample.context.support.AppSettingHandlersample.context.DomainHelperProviderImpl→sample.context.support.IdGeneratorsample.context.TimestamperImpl→sample.context.support.AppSettingHandler
- Direction
- context uses context.support, so a change to context.support can break context, while a change to context can't break context.support.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: context uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
13→14 context uses sample part of a loop✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in context uses a type in sample.
- The types involved
sample.context.DomainHelper→sample.ApplicationPropertiessample.context.DomainHelperProviderImpl→sample.ApplicationProperties
- Direction
- context uses sample, so a change to sample can break context, while a change to context can't break sample.
- Position
- Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
14→11 sample uses context.orm✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in sample uses a type in context.orm.
- The types involved
sample.ApplicationDbConfig→sample.context.orm.OrmInterceptorsample.ApplicationDbConfig→sample.context.orm.OrmRepository
- Direction
- sample uses context.orm, so a change to context.orm can break sample, while a change to sample can't break context.orm.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: sample uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
14→13 sample uses context✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in sample uses a type in context.
- The types involved
sample.ApplicationDbConfig→sample.context.DomainHelper
- Direction
- sample uses context, so a change to context can break sample, while a change to sample can't break context.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: sample uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
15→1 context.audit uses context.actor.type✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in context.audit uses a type in context.actor.type.
- The types involved
sample.context.audit.AuditActor→sample.context.actor.type.ActorRoleTypesample.context.audit.FindAuditActor→sample.context.actor.type.ActorRoleType
- Direction
- context.audit uses context.actor.type, so a change to context.actor.type can break context.audit, while a change to context.audit can't break context.actor.type.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: context.audit uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
15→10 context.audit uses context.actor✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in context.audit uses a type in context.actor.
- The types involved
sample.context.audit.RegAuditActor→sample.context.actor.Actor
- Direction
- context.audit uses context.actor, so a change to context.actor can break context.audit, while a change to context.audit can't break context.actor.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: context.audit uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
15→11 context.audit uses context.orm✕
- Connections
- 3 pairs of types, where a type in context.audit uses a type in context.orm.
- The types involved
sample.context.audit.AuditActor→sample.context.orm.OrmRepositorysample.context.audit.AuditEvent→sample.context.orm.OrmRepositorysample.context.audit.AuditPersister→sample.context.orm.OrmRepository
- Direction
- context.audit uses context.orm, so a change to context.orm can break context.audit, while a change to context.audit can't break context.orm.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: context.audit uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
15→13 context.audit uses context✕
- Connections
- 8 pairs of types, where a type in context.audit uses a type in context.
- The types involved
sample.context.audit.AuditActor→sample.context.ActionStatusTypesample.context.audit.AuditActor→sample.context.DomainEntitysample.context.audit.AuditEvent→sample.context.ActionStatusTypesample.context.audit.AuditEvent→sample.context.DomainEntitysample.context.audit.FindAuditActor→sample.context.ActionStatusTypesample.context.audit.FindAuditEvent→sample.context.ActionStatusTypesample.context.audit.RegAuditActor→sample.context.Dtosample.context.audit.RegAuditEvent→sample.context.Dto
- Direction
- context.audit uses context, so a change to context can break context.audit, while a change to context.audit can't break context.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: context.audit uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
16→3 context.report uses context.report.csv✕
- Connections
- 3 pairs of types, where a type in context.report uses a type in context.report.csv.
- The types involved
sample.context.report.ReportHandler→sample.context.report.csv.CsvLayoutsample.context.report.ReportHandler→sample.context.report.csv.CsvReadLinesample.context.report.ReportHandler→sample.context.report.csv.CsvWrite
- Direction
- context.report uses context.report.csv, so a change to context.report.csv can break context.report, while a change to context.report can't break context.report.csv.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: context.report uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
16→13 context.report uses context✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in context.report uses a type in context.
- The types involved
sample.context.report.ReportFile→sample.context.Dto
- Direction
- context.report uses context, so a change to context can break context.report, while a change to context.report can't break context.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: context.report uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
17→1 model.master uses context.actor.type✕
- Connections
- 4 pairs of types, where a type in model.master uses a type in context.actor.type.
- The types involved
sample.model.master.Login→sample.context.actor.type.ActorRoleTypesample.model.master.LoginId→sample.context.actor.type.ActorRoleTypesample.model.master.RegLogin→sample.context.actor.type.ActorRoleTypesample.model.master.Staff→sample.context.actor.type.ActorRoleType
- Direction
- model.master uses context.actor.type, so a change to context.actor.type can break model.master, while a change to model.master can't break context.actor.type.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model.master uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
17→10 model.master uses context.actor✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in model.master uses a type in context.actor.
- The types involved
sample.model.master.Staff→sample.context.actor.Actor
- Direction
- model.master uses context.actor, so a change to context.actor can break model.master, while a change to model.master can't break context.actor.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model.master uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
17→11 model.master uses context.orm✕
- Connections
- 5 pairs of types, where a type in model.master uses a type in context.orm.
- The types involved
sample.model.master.Holiday→sample.context.orm.OrmRepositorysample.model.master.Login→sample.context.orm.OrmRepositorysample.model.master.SelfFiAccount→sample.context.orm.OrmRepositorysample.model.master.Staff→sample.context.orm.OrmRepositorysample.model.master.StaffAuthority→sample.context.orm.OrmRepository
- Direction
- model.master uses context.orm, so a change to context.orm can break model.master, while a change to model.master can't break context.orm.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model.master uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
17→13 model.master uses context✕
- Connections
- 12 pairs of types, where a type in model.master uses a type in context.
- The types involved
sample.model.master.ChgStaff→sample.context.Dtosample.model.master.FindStaff→sample.context.Dtosample.model.master.Holiday→sample.context.DomainMetaEntitysample.model.master.Login→sample.context.DomainEntitysample.model.master.LoginId→sample.context.Dtosample.model.master.RegHoliday→sample.context.Dtosample.model.master.RegHolidayItem→sample.context.Dtosample.model.master.RegLogin→sample.context.Dtosample.model.master.RegStaff→sample.context.Dtosample.model.master.SelfFiAccount→sample.context.DomainEntitysample.model.master.Staff→sample.context.DomainEntitysample.model.master.StaffAuthority→sample.context.DomainEntity
- Direction
- model.master uses context, so a change to context can break model.master, while a change to model.master can't break context.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model.master uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
18→8 usecase.event uses usecase.event.type✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in usecase.event uses a type in usecase.event.type.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.event.NotificationEvent→sample.usecase.event.type.NotificationType
- Direction
- usecase.event uses usecase.event.type, so a change to usecase.event.type can break usecase.event, while a change to usecase.event can't break usecase.event.type.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase.event uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
18→13 usecase.event uses context✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in usecase.event uses a type in context.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.event.NotificationEvent→sample.context.Dto
- Direction
- usecase.event uses context, so a change to context can break usecase.event, while a change to usecase.event can't break context.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase.event uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
19→14 context.mail uses sample✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in context.mail uses a type in sample.
- The types involved
sample.context.mail.MailHandlerImpl→sample.ApplicationProperties
- Direction
- context.mail uses sample, so a change to sample can break context.mail, while a change to context.mail can't break sample.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: context.mail uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
20→11 model uses context.orm✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in model uses a type in context.orm.
- The types involved
sample.model.HolidayAccessor→sample.context.orm.OrmRepositorysample.model.HolidayAccessorImpl→sample.context.orm.OrmRepository
- Direction
- model uses context.orm, so a change to context.orm can break model, while a change to model can't break context.orm.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
20→12 model uses context.support✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in model uses a type in context.support.
- The types involved
sample.model.DomainIdGenerator→sample.context.support.IdGenerator
- Direction
- model uses context.support, so a change to context.support can break model, while a change to model can't break context.support.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
20→13 model uses context✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in model uses a type in context.
- The types involved
sample.model.BusinessDayHandler→sample.context.Timestampersample.model.DomainIdGenerator→sample.context.DomainHelper
- Direction
- model uses context, so a change to context can break model, while a change to model can't break context.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
20→17 model uses model.master✕
- Connections
- 4 pairs of types, where a type in model uses a type in model.master.
- The types involved
sample.model.HolidayAccessor→sample.model.master.Holidaysample.model.HolidayAccessor→sample.model.master.RegHolidaysample.model.HolidayAccessorImpl→sample.model.master.Holidaysample.model.HolidayAccessorImpl→sample.model.master.RegHoliday
- Direction
- model uses model.master, so a change to model.master can break model, while a change to model can't break model.master.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
21→5 model.account uses model.account.type✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in model.account uses a type in model.account.type.
- The types involved
sample.model.account.Account→sample.model.account.type.AccountStatusType
- Direction
- model.account uses model.account.type, so a change to model.account.type can break model.account, while a change to model.account can't break model.account.type.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model.account uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
21→10 model.account uses context.actor✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in model.account uses a type in context.actor.
- The types involved
sample.model.account.Account→sample.context.actor.Actor
- Direction
- model.account uses context.actor, so a change to context.actor can break model.account, while a change to model.account can't break context.actor.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model.account uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
21→11 model.account uses context.orm✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in model.account uses a type in context.orm.
- The types involved
sample.model.account.Account→sample.context.orm.OrmRepositorysample.model.account.FiAccount→sample.context.orm.OrmRepository
- Direction
- model.account uses context.orm, so a change to context.orm can break model.account, while a change to model.account can't break context.orm.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model.account uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
21→13 model.account uses context✕
- Connections
- 4 pairs of types, where a type in model.account uses a type in context.
- The types involved
sample.model.account.Account→sample.context.DomainEntitysample.model.account.ChgAccount→sample.context.Dtosample.model.account.FiAccount→sample.context.DomainEntitysample.model.account.RegAccount→sample.context.Dto
- Direction
- model.account uses context, so a change to context can break model.account, while a change to model.account can't break context.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model.account uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
21→17 model.account uses model.master✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in model.account uses a type in model.master.
- The types involved
sample.model.account.RegAccount→sample.model.master.RegLogin
- Direction
- model.account uses model.master, so a change to model.master can break model.account, while a change to model.account can't break model.master.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model.account uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
22→6 model.asset uses model.asset.type✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in model.asset uses a type in model.asset.type.
- The types involved
sample.model.asset.Cashflow→sample.model.asset.type.CashflowTypesample.model.asset.RegCashflow→sample.model.asset.type.CashflowType
- Direction
- model.asset uses model.asset.type, so a change to model.asset.type can break model.asset, while a change to model.asset can't break model.asset.type.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model.asset uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
22→9 model.asset uses util✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in model.asset uses a type in util.
- The types involved
sample.model.asset.RegCashOut→sample.util.TimePointsample.model.asset.RegCashflow→sample.util.TimePoint
- Direction
- model.asset uses util, so a change to util can break model.asset, while a change to model.asset can't break util.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model.asset uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
22→11 model.asset uses context.orm✕
- Connections
- 4 pairs of types, where a type in model.asset uses a type in context.orm.
- The types involved
sample.model.asset.Asset→sample.context.orm.OrmRepositorysample.model.asset.CashBalance→sample.context.orm.OrmRepositorysample.model.asset.CashInOut→sample.context.orm.OrmRepositorysample.model.asset.Cashflow→sample.context.orm.OrmRepository
- Direction
- model.asset uses context.orm, so a change to context.orm can break model.asset, while a change to model.asset can't break context.orm.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model.asset uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
22→13 model.asset uses context✕
- Connections
- 9 pairs of types, where a type in model.asset uses a type in context.
- The types involved
sample.model.asset.CashBalance→sample.context.DomainEntitysample.model.asset.CashInOut→sample.context.ActionStatusTypesample.model.asset.CashInOut→sample.context.DomainMetaEntitysample.model.asset.Cashflow→sample.context.ActionStatusTypesample.model.asset.Cashflow→sample.context.DomainMetaEntitysample.model.asset.FindCashInOut→sample.context.ActionStatusTypesample.model.asset.FindCashInOut→sample.context.Dtosample.model.asset.RegCashOut→sample.context.Dtosample.model.asset.RegCashflow→sample.context.Dto
- Direction
- model.asset uses context, so a change to context can break model.asset, while a change to model.asset can't break context.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model.asset uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
22→17 model.asset uses model.master✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in model.asset uses a type in model.master.
- The types involved
sample.model.asset.RegCashOut→sample.model.master.SelfFiAccount
- Direction
- model.asset uses model.master, so a change to model.master can break model.asset, while a change to model.asset can't break model.master.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model.asset uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
22→20 model.asset uses model✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in model.asset uses a type in model.
- The types involved
sample.model.asset.CashInOut→sample.model.BusinessDayHandler
- Direction
- model.asset uses model, so a change to model can break model.asset, while a change to model.asset can't break model.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model.asset uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
22→21 model.asset uses model.account✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in model.asset uses a type in model.account.
- The types involved
sample.model.asset.RegCashOut→sample.model.account.FiAccount
- Direction
- model.asset uses model.account, so a change to model.account can break model.asset, while a change to model.asset can't break model.account.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: model.asset uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
23→2 usecase uses context.lock✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in usecase uses a type in context.lock.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.AssetService→sample.context.lock.IdLockHandler
- Direction
- usecase uses context.lock, so a change to context.lock can break usecase, while a change to usecase can't break context.lock.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
23→11 usecase uses context.orm✕
- Connections
- 3 pairs of types, where a type in usecase uses a type in context.orm.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.AccountService→sample.context.orm.OrmRepositorysample.usecase.AssetService→sample.context.orm.OrmRepositorysample.usecase.SecurityService→sample.context.orm.OrmRepository
- Direction
- usecase uses context.orm, so a change to context.orm can break usecase, while a change to usecase can't break context.orm.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
23→13 usecase uses context✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in usecase uses a type in context.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.UserRegCashOut→sample.context.Dto
- Direction
- usecase uses context, so a change to context can break usecase, while a change to usecase can't break context.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
23→15 usecase uses context.audit✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in usecase uses a type in context.audit.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.AssetService→sample.context.audit.AuditHandler
- Direction
- usecase uses context.audit, so a change to context.audit can break usecase, while a change to usecase can't break context.audit.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
23→17 usecase uses model.master✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in usecase uses a type in model.master.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.SecurityService→sample.model.master.Login
- Direction
- usecase uses model.master, so a change to model.master can break usecase, while a change to usecase can't break model.master.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
23→20 usecase uses model✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in usecase uses a type in model.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.AssetService→sample.model.BusinessDayHandler
- Direction
- usecase uses model, so a change to model can break usecase, while a change to usecase can't break model.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
23→21 usecase uses model.account✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in usecase uses a type in model.account.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.AccountService→sample.model.account.Account
- Direction
- usecase uses model.account, so a change to model.account can break usecase, while a change to usecase can't break model.account.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
23→22 usecase uses model.asset✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in usecase uses a type in model.asset.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.AssetService→sample.model.asset.CashInOutsample.usecase.UserRegCashOut→sample.model.asset.RegCashOut
- Direction
- usecase uses model.asset, so a change to model.asset can break usecase, while a change to usecase can't break model.asset.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→2 usecase.admin uses context.lock✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in usecase.admin uses a type in context.lock.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.admin.AssetAdminService→sample.context.lock.IdLockHandler
- Direction
- usecase.admin uses context.lock, so a change to context.lock can break usecase.admin, while a change to usecase.admin can't break context.lock.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase.admin uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→11 usecase.admin uses context.orm✕
- Connections
- 3 pairs of types, where a type in usecase.admin uses a type in context.orm.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.admin.AssetAdminService→sample.context.orm.OrmRepositorysample.usecase.admin.MasterAdminService→sample.context.orm.OrmRepositorysample.usecase.admin.SystemAdminService→sample.context.orm.OrmRepository
- Direction
- usecase.admin uses context.orm, so a change to context.orm can break usecase.admin, while a change to usecase.admin can't break context.orm.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase.admin uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→12 usecase.admin uses context.support✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in usecase.admin uses a type in context.support.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.admin.SystemAdminService→sample.context.support.AppSettingsample.usecase.admin.SystemAdminService→sample.context.support.FindAppSetting
- Direction
- usecase.admin uses context.support, so a change to context.support can break usecase.admin, while a change to usecase.admin can't break context.support.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase.admin uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→15 usecase.admin uses context.audit✕
- Connections
- 7 pairs of types, where a type in usecase.admin uses a type in context.audit.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.admin.AssetAdminService→sample.context.audit.AuditHandlersample.usecase.admin.MasterAdminService→sample.context.audit.AuditHandlersample.usecase.admin.SystemAdminService→sample.context.audit.AuditActorsample.usecase.admin.SystemAdminService→sample.context.audit.AuditEventsample.usecase.admin.SystemAdminService→sample.context.audit.AuditHandlersample.usecase.admin.SystemAdminService→sample.context.audit.FindAuditActorsample.usecase.admin.SystemAdminService→sample.context.audit.FindAuditEvent
- Direction
- usecase.admin uses context.audit, so a change to context.audit can break usecase.admin, while a change to usecase.admin can't break context.audit.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase.admin uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→17 usecase.admin uses model.master✕
- Connections
- 5 pairs of types, where a type in usecase.admin uses a type in model.master.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.admin.MasterAdminService→sample.model.master.FindHolidaysample.usecase.admin.MasterAdminService→sample.model.master.Holidaysample.usecase.admin.MasterAdminService→sample.model.master.RegHolidaysample.usecase.admin.MasterAdminService→sample.model.master.Staffsample.usecase.admin.MasterAdminService→sample.model.master.StaffAuthority
- Direction
- usecase.admin uses model.master, so a change to model.master can break usecase.admin, while a change to usecase.admin can't break model.master.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase.admin uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→20 usecase.admin uses model✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in usecase.admin uses a type in model.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.admin.SystemAdminService→sample.model.BusinessDayHandler
- Direction
- usecase.admin uses model, so a change to model can break usecase.admin, while a change to usecase.admin can't break model.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase.admin uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→22 usecase.admin uses model.asset✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in usecase.admin uses a type in model.asset.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.admin.AssetAdminService→sample.model.asset.CashInOutsample.usecase.admin.AssetAdminService→sample.model.asset.FindCashInOut
- Direction
- usecase.admin uses model.asset, so a change to model.asset can break usecase.admin, while a change to usecase.admin can't break model.asset.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase.admin uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
25→11 usecase.notification uses context.orm✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in usecase.notification uses a type in context.orm.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.notification.NotificationDeliver→sample.context.orm.OrmRepository
- Direction
- usecase.notification uses context.orm, so a change to context.orm can break usecase.notification, while a change to usecase.notification can't break context.orm.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase.notification uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
25→18 usecase.notification uses usecase.event✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in usecase.notification uses a type in usecase.event.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.notification.NotificationDeliver→sample.usecase.event.NotificationEvent
- Direction
- usecase.notification uses usecase.event, so a change to usecase.event can break usecase.notification, while a change to usecase.notification can't break usecase.event.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase.notification uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
25→19 usecase.notification uses context.mail✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in usecase.notification uses a type in context.mail.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.notification.NotificationDeliver→sample.context.mail.MailHandler
- Direction
- usecase.notification uses context.mail, so a change to context.mail can break usecase.notification, while a change to usecase.notification can't break context.mail.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase.notification uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
25→21 usecase.notification uses model.account✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in usecase.notification uses a type in model.account.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.notification.NotificationDeliver→sample.model.account.Account
- Direction
- usecase.notification uses model.account, so a change to model.account can break usecase.notification, while a change to usecase.notification can't break model.account.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase.notification uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
25→22 usecase.notification uses model.asset✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in usecase.notification uses a type in model.asset.
- The types involved
sample.usecase.notification.NotificationDeliver→sample.model.asset.CashInOut
- Direction
- usecase.notification uses model.asset, so a change to model.asset can break usecase.notification, while a change to usecase.notification can't break model.asset.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: usecase.notification uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→1 controller uses context.actor.type✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in controller uses a type in context.actor.type.
- The types involved
sample.controller.LoginAccount→sample.context.actor.type.ActorRoleType
- Direction
- controller uses context.actor.type, so a change to context.actor.type can break controller, while a change to controller can't break context.actor.type.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: controller uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→9 controller uses util✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in controller uses a type in util.
- The types involved
sample.controller.ErrorHolder→sample.util.Warnsample.controller.RestErrorAdvice→sample.util.Warns
- Direction
- controller uses util, so a change to util can break controller, while a change to controller can't break util.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: controller uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→13 controller uses context✕
- Connections
- 5 pairs of types, where a type in controller uses a type in context.
- The types involved
sample.controller.ErrorHolder→sample.context.ValidationExceptionsample.controller.LoginAccount→sample.context.Dtosample.controller.RestErrorAdvice→sample.context.ValidationExceptionsample.controller.UserCashOut→sample.context.ActionStatusTypesample.controller.UserCashOut→sample.context.Dto
- Direction
- controller uses context, so a change to context can break controller, while a change to controller can't break context.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: controller uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→16 controller uses context.report✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in controller uses a type in context.report.
- The types involved
sample.controller.ControllerUtils→sample.context.report.ReportFile
- Direction
- controller uses context.report, so a change to context.report can break controller, while a change to controller can't break context.report.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: controller uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→21 controller uses model.account✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in controller uses a type in model.account.
- The types involved
sample.controller.AccountController→sample.model.account.Account
- Direction
- controller uses model.account, so a change to model.account can break controller, while a change to controller can't break model.account.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: controller uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→22 controller uses model.asset✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in controller uses a type in model.asset.
- The types involved
sample.controller.UserCashOut→sample.model.asset.CashInOut
- Direction
- controller uses model.asset, so a change to model.asset can break controller, while a change to controller can't break model.asset.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: controller uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→23 controller uses usecase✕
- Connections
- 3 pairs of types, where a type in controller uses a type in usecase.
- The types involved
sample.controller.AccountController→sample.usecase.AccountServicesample.controller.AssetController→sample.usecase.AssetServicesample.controller.AssetController→sample.usecase.UserRegCashOut
- Direction
- controller uses usecase, so a change to usecase can break controller, while a change to controller can't break usecase.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: controller uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→12 controller.admin uses context.support✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in controller.admin uses a type in context.support.
- The types involved
sample.controller.admin.SystemAdminController→sample.context.support.AppSettingsample.controller.admin.SystemAdminController→sample.context.support.FindAppSetting
- Direction
- controller.admin uses context.support, so a change to context.support can break controller.admin, while a change to controller.admin can't break context.support.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: controller.admin uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→15 controller.admin uses context.audit✕
- Connections
- 4 pairs of types, where a type in controller.admin uses a type in context.audit.
- The types involved
sample.controller.admin.SystemAdminController→sample.context.audit.AuditActorsample.controller.admin.SystemAdminController→sample.context.audit.AuditEventsample.controller.admin.SystemAdminController→sample.context.audit.FindAuditActorsample.controller.admin.SystemAdminController→sample.context.audit.FindAuditEvent
- Direction
- controller.admin uses context.audit, so a change to context.audit can break controller.admin, while a change to controller.admin can't break context.audit.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: controller.admin uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→17 controller.admin uses model.master✕
- Connections
- 3 pairs of types, where a type in controller.admin uses a type in model.master.
- The types involved
sample.controller.admin.MasterAdminController→sample.model.master.FindHolidaysample.controller.admin.MasterAdminController→sample.model.master.Holidaysample.controller.admin.MasterAdminController→sample.model.master.RegHoliday
- Direction
- controller.admin uses model.master, so a change to model.master can break controller.admin, while a change to controller.admin can't break model.master.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: controller.admin uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→22 controller.admin uses model.asset✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in controller.admin uses a type in model.asset.
- The types involved
sample.controller.admin.AssetAdminController→sample.model.asset.CashInOutsample.controller.admin.AssetAdminController→sample.model.asset.FindCashInOut
- Direction
- controller.admin uses model.asset, so a change to model.asset can break controller.admin, while a change to controller.admin can't break model.asset.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: controller.admin uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→24 controller.admin uses usecase.admin✕
- Connections
- 3 pairs of types, where a type in controller.admin uses a type in usecase.admin.
- The types involved
sample.controller.admin.AssetAdminController→sample.usecase.admin.AssetAdminServicesample.controller.admin.MasterAdminController→sample.usecase.admin.MasterAdminServicesample.controller.admin.SystemAdminController→sample.usecase.admin.SystemAdminService
- Direction
- controller.admin uses usecase.admin, so a change to usecase.admin can break controller.admin, while a change to controller.admin can't break usecase.admin.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: controller.admin uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
28→24 controller.system uses usecase.admin✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in controller.system uses a type in usecase.admin.
- The types involved
sample.controller.system.JobController→sample.usecase.admin.AssetAdminServicesample.controller.system.JobController→sample.usecase.admin.SystemAdminService
- Direction
- controller.system uses usecase.admin, so a change to usecase.admin can break controller.system, while a change to controller.system can't break usecase.admin.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: controller.system uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
9.2
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
9.5
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
9.9
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
10.0
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
10.0
X16 · Repo
Unfloored truncation loop
10.0
X18 · Repo
Disposal-pattern correctness
10.0
X19 · Repo
Unrestored process-global state
10.0
X20 · Repo
Mistyped argument guard
10.0
X21 · Repo
Side-effecting pattern guard
10.0
X22 · Repo
Contradicted release guard
10.0
X23 · Repo
Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
10.0
X25 · Repo
Inert configuration knob
10.0
X26 · Repo
Unsynchronised callback handoff
10.0
X27 · Repo
Collection changed while being enumerated
10.0
X28 · Repo
Index access outside its own emptiness guard
10.0
X29 · Repo
Per-element action decided by a fixed element
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
7.1
X30 · Repo
Support guard that admits what it rejects
10.0
The Bad
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Security
The Good
D28 · .NET / C#
Secrets (history)
8.0
D29 · .NET / C#
Static Analysis (SAST)
10.0
D31 · .NET / C#
IaC & Container Security
9.9
D44 · .NET / C#
Platform End-of-Life
10.0
X14 · Repo
Bypassable address classification
10.0
X15 · Repo
Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
10.0
X24 · Repo
Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
10.0
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A07:2025 — Authentication Failures | 4 | High / Critical |
| A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration | 2 | Medium |
Roadmap
Immediately resolve the leaked secret in REDACTED and establish a CI pipeline to run tests on every push. Address the 33 orphaned files, beginning with JpqlBuilder.java, RestErrorAdvice.java, and CashInOut.java, while enforcing null safety by declaring @NullMarked and resolving existing suppressions. Finally, improve documentation quality by filling the gap in architecture and design docs to complement the existing project overview.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED. | +11.8 pts | Low | REDACTED Scanning |
| Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. | +7.2 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Resolve the 33 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with JpqlBuilder.java, RestErrorAdvice.java, CashInOut.java. | +3.9 pts | Medium | Knowledge Freshness |
| Declare the default where Java declares it: `@NullMarked` (org.jspecify.annotations) in each package's `package-info.java`, or once in `module-info.java`, and run NullAway (Error Prone) or the Checker Framework so the declaration is enforced. Then annotate the real exceptions `@Nullable` and resolve the suppressions rather than adding to them: a `@SuppressWarnings("NullAway")` or `castToNonNull(x)` on a value the checker could show to be null is a `NullPointerException` waiting for the path that makes it true — where the value genuinely cannot be null, say something the checker can see instead (a null check, `Objects.requireNonNull`, a non-null field initialised in the constructor). | +3.7 pts | Medium | Nullable reference types |
| Improve Documentation Quality — currently 6.0/10. | +2.9 pts | Medium | Documentation Quality |
| Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it. | +2.2 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. | +2.2 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Interpolated log message defeats structured logging | +2.1 pts | Medium | Structured logging |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 3.0 | Mixed | REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED |
| src/main/java/sample/context/report/csv/CsvReader.java | 7.8 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: CsvReader.readStreamLine (cognitive 29) |
| src/main/java/sample/context/orm/JpqlBuilder.java | 7.8 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) |
| src/main/java/sample/context/audit/AuditHandler.java | 7.8 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) |
| src/main/java/sample/util/DateUtils.java | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: TooManyMethods: DateUtils |
| REDACTED | 9.0 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: Low IaC: REDACTED |
How the grades work
Critical — 3
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Serious — 9
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.
Minor — 151
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 19
Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 52 of 56 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 0.9 — 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 — 56 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D17D19D21D26D28D29D31D34D35D44AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX6IC1M1M3M4P1P2P3P4P6X14X15X16X18X19X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X4X5
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, 49 of 163 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 |
| Watchdog duplication detector (in-process) | Code duplication | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.java) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Currency was graded against Maven Central, but whether an artifact is DEPRECATED is not: Maven Central publishes no deprecation marker, exactly as rubygems.org does not. Whether one is UNMAINTAINED is not graded either — no registry publishes a maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Two of this dimension's four signals are therefore unread on a Gradle tree, and its score reflects currency alone.
- D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable (1 contributor(s) across 187 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). Concentration needs a team to concentrate: with one contributor there is nobody to spread the knowledge to, so there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is an ADMISSION gap, not an environment fault: no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here. D22 DOES collect the public API of every language in this tree, and admits a project only when its manifest makes that ecosystem's publication act in a form the marker recognises — so what is missing is not a collector but an admission rule for the publication act this repository makes, if it makes one. The remedy is a better discriminator for that marker — not a collector, and no change to the scan image can close it. The marker's rules are measured to refuse applications, so one refused repository is the rule working as calibrated; several are the evidence that it is too strict.
- D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via DockerCompose (REDACTED). compose up failed (exit 18 — an image could not be pulled) — db Pulling workspace Pulling db Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden workspace Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the earlier `compose pull` step reported: db Pulling workspace Pulling db Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden workspace Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the runtime sandbox reaches registries only through the in-fence pull-through mirror, so an image the mirror does not carry cannot be fetched — this is a limit of our sandbox, not of your stack; runtime evidence skipped.
- C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
- C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
- C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
- C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
- ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check decides whether a handler's mutation is safe to re-run by recognising its persistence writes (a database save, a repository write, an event publish) and its guards. Those markers are .NET member names, so in this repository's language a write such as `repository.save(order)` is not recognised and a same-named call on an unrelated library type could be. The handlers were found; their idempotency was neither confirmed nor ruled out.
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Java is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- P8 Schema migrations — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. The schema may be created by a runner, a deploy script or a config file outside what this check reads, so an absence here is our blind spot rather than a missing migration strategy. The card abstains instead of scoring. You can widen what we reach: if the schema is created and evolved by a tool this check does not name, naming it lets us teach the detector to read it.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
- X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X10 Duplicated predicate — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- 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 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED 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.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- 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.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- 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.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- 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
2 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was CsvReader.readStreamLine at 29.
CsvReader.readStreamLine (cognitive 29)src/main/java/sample/context/report/csv/CsvReader.java:97
CsvReader.parseRow (cognitive 25)src/main/java/sample/context/report/csv/CsvReader.java:164
What to do
- Bring the 2 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with CsvReader.readStreamLine (cognitive 29), CsvReader.parseRow (cognitive 25). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 2 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 9.2 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
- Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cognitive Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. 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.
TooManyMethods: DateUtilssrc/main/java/sample/util/DateUtils.java:23
What to do
- Resolve the 1 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with DateUtils.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate God Classes in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
3 duplicated block group(s) detected. One further row reports members as variants of one another; it aggregates block groups already counted above and is not itself counted.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens)src/main/java/sample/context/orm/JpqlBuilder.java:149
Duplicated block (23 lines × 2)src/main/java/sample/context/audit/AuditHandler.java:143
Duplicated block (12 lines × 4)src/main/java/sample/context/orm/JpqlBuilder.java:150
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)src/main/java/sample/context/audit/AuditHandler.java:167
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with JpqlBuilder.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with AuditHandler.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with JpqlBuilder.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Duplication in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 35 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
41 test methods: 41 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 41 tests.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability
0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). Java/Kotlin (repository root, Gradle): measured (0 flaky).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
This repository's Gradle dependency graph was RESOLVED BY A BUILD, across every subproject rather than the root alone: 119 artifact(s) resolved, 119 of them gradable against Maven Central, and 107 behind a shipped release. Where a version was requested and a different one won conflict resolution, the RESOLVED version is what is graded — grading the request would recommend an upgrade already applied. Known CVEs in the same graph are a separate question again, reported under D30.
Outdated (compile): org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-configuration-processor
What to do
- Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Dependency Hygiene in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · REDACTED Scanning
1 secret(s) detected.
REDACTED
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate REDACTED Scanning in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 3 declared JVM dependency artifact(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from the POMs Maven Central publishes, over the coordinates this repository's 1 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) declare with a version resolvable from the manifest itself — the same declaration-site closure this analysis reads for dependency currency. The JVM has no lockfile a checkout is guaranteed to carry, so this is deliberately NOT the transitive closure. A further 1 coordinate(s) are not published to Maven Central — another repository (Google's Maven hosts androidx), a SNAPSHOT, or a private artifact — so their licences are not readable from here and they are outside this verdict.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted task-comment markers across 8016 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The root README is a well-structured DDD project overview with an informative Preface, Concept of Layering table, Spring Boot Usage Policy, Java Coding Policy, and links to Spring projects; it also contains the data/README as a directory-specific documentation. The architecture/design docs are absent (0), so the absence of those files would lower quality below 6.
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 6.0/10. — The root README is a well-structured DDD project overview with an informative Preface, Concept of Layering table, Spring Boot Usage Policy, Java Coding Policy, and links to Spring projects; it also contains the data/README as a directory-specific documentation. The architecture/design docs are absent (0), so the absence of those files would lower quality below 6.
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
1 of 1 build units (Gradle) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
2 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
- Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `gradlew` (line 74, line 180) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
2 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 2 low.
REDACTED
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
33 of 33 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/main/java/sample/context/orm/JpqlBuilder.java. Counted over 33 of the 147 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/context/orm/JpqlBuilder.java:1
Dormant codebase
What to do
- Resolve the 33 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with JpqlBuilder.java, RestErrorAdvice.java, CashInOut.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (33 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase 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
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 6 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX1 · Captive dependencies
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX2 · Stateful singletons
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying 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?
M3 · Folder & project structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
- No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
- Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
- Run what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
What to do
- Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
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?
X14 · Bypassable address classification
Do you agree with this assessment?
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
Do you agree with this assessment?
X16 · Unfloored truncation loop
Do you agree with this assessment?
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X19 · Unrestored process-global state
Do you agree with this assessment?
X20 · Mistyped argument guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X22 · Contradicted release guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
Do you agree with this assessment?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
Do you agree with this assessment?
X25 · Inert configuration knob
Do you agree with this assessment?
X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff
Do you agree with this assessment?
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
- An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. — src/main/java/sample/usecase/admin/AssetAdminService.java:110
What to do
- Swallowed exception (empty catch)
Do you agree with this assessment?
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
- `info` at line 38 is handed a message assembled at the call — a string concatenated with a value, or `String.format` — through SLF4J or log4j 2, so the logger receives one finished string: the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, every occurrence reads as a different message, and the string is built even when the level is filtered out. Pass a constant pattern and the values beside it instead: `log.info("Order {} moved to {}", orderId, status)`, which keeps the pattern and its arguments apart on the event for a structured encoder (logstash-logback-encoder, log4j 2's JsonTemplateLayout, OpenTelemetry), or `log.atInfo().addKeyValue("order_id", orderId).log("order moved")` with SLF4J 2's fluent API. An exception goes last, as the throwable argument, not into the text. — src/main/java/sample/context/mail/MailHandler.java:38
- `error` at line 74 is handed a message assembled at the call — a string concatenated with a value, or `String.format` — through SLF4J or log4j 2, so the logger receives one finished string: the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, every occurrence reads as a different message, and the string is built even when the level is filtered out. Pass a constant pattern and the values beside it instead: `log.error("Order {} moved to {}", orderId, status)`, which keeps the pattern and its arguments apart on the event for a structured encoder (logstash-logback-encoder, log4j 2's JsonTemplateLayout, OpenTelemetry), or `log.atInfo().addKeyValue("order_id", orderId).log("order moved")` with SLF4J 2's fluent API. An exception goes last, as the throwable argument, not into the text. — src/main/java/sample/usecase/admin/AssetAdminService.java:74
- `error` at line 106 is handed a message assembled at the call — a string concatenated with a value, or `String.format` — through SLF4J or log4j 2, so the logger receives one finished string: the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, every occurrence reads as a different message, and the string is built even when the level is filtered out. Pass a constant pattern and the values beside it instead: `log.error("Order {} moved to {}", orderId, status)`, which keeps the pattern and its arguments apart on the event for a structured encoder (logstash-logback-encoder, log4j 2's JsonTemplateLayout, OpenTelemetry), or `log.atInfo().addKeyValue("order_id", orderId).log("order moved")` with SLF4J 2's fluent API. An exception goes last, as the throwable argument, not into the text. — src/main/java/sample/usecase/admin/AssetAdminService.java:106
What to do
- Interpolated log message defeats structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
X5 · Nullable reference types
- 0/28 of this repository's Java package directories are under a non-null default: a `package-info.java` declaring `@NullMarked` (JSpecify) or `@NonNullApi`, `@ParametersAreNonnullByDefault`, `@NonNullByDefault`, `@DefaultQualifier(NonNull.class)`; a `module-info.java` declaring `@NullMarked`; every type in it `@NullMarked`; or a build that runs NullAway with the package in `AnnotatedPackages`, or the Checker Framework's `NullnessChecker`. Elsewhere every reference admits null and no checker warns on the dereference that throws a `NullPointerException`.
What to do
- Declare the default where Java declares it: `@NullMarked` (org.jspecify.annotations) in each package's `package-info.java`, or once in `module-info.java`, and run NullAway (Error Prone) or the Checker Framework so the declaration is enforced. Then annotate the real exceptions `@Nullable` and resolve the suppressions rather than adding to them: a `@SuppressWarnings("NullAway")` or `castToNonNull(x)` on a value the checker could show to be null is a `NullPointerException` waiting for the path that makes it true — where the value genuinely cannot be null, say something the checker can see instead (a null check, `Objects.requireNonNull`, a non-null field initialised in the constructor).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 60% | Adequate — gated by X5 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 91% | Adequate — gated by D26 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Maturity | 68% | Adequate — gated by D34 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 34% | Adequate — gated by P1, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 95% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 59 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.
- AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- 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 — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — compose up failed (exit 18 — an image could not be pulled) — db Pulling workspace Pulling db Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden workspace Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the earlier `compose pull` step reported: db Pulling workspace Pulling db Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden workspace Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the runtime sandbox reaches registries only through the in-fence pull-through mirror, so an image the mirror does not carry cannot be fetched — this is a limit of our sandbox, not of your stack; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D16 Bus Factor — single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Aggregate roots were found in only one source directory (model), which is a layered codebase, not two contexts. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.java), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).
- D5 Coupling — Not applicable — this Gradle build ships 1 production module(s), so there is no coupling BETWEEN modules to measure. (Its test and non-production modules are not part of the shipped graph.)
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (3 signals for this style, 3 needed — the count is met but a required primary signal is absent): 1 aggregate root(s) (types guarding their own state behind command methods — this language has no AggregateRoot base to inherit); 27 value object(s); 3 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one; no aggregate is declared and no domain structure surrounds the state-guarding types: not claimed as DDD
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (1 event handler(s))
- ED5 Idempotency — Not assessed, and this one is on us: 1 command handler(s) or message consumer(s) were found here, but this check does not yet recognise persistence writes in this repository's language. Idempotency was neither confirmed nor ruled out — this is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (an Axon event-sourcing framework (@Aggregate/@CommandHandler/@EventSourcingHandler annotations))
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- M2 Architecture documentation — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — formal architecture documentation (ADRs, C4 diagrams) is deferred to a real application built from it, so its absence is not a defect here.
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected — no HTTP client call or construction in the JVM source (service entry point: src/main/java/sample/Application.java:9 (@SpringBootApplication))
- P8 Schema migrations — Hibernate is declared, but the schema-migration mechanism could not be identified. Our limit, not a verdict on this repository.
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `@Benchmark` in a Java, Kotlin or Scala file importing JMH or kotlinx-benchmark, Jetpack Benchmark's `measureRepeated` in a file importing androidx.benchmark, or JMH/kotlinx-benchmark/androidx.benchmark in a pom.xml, Gradle or sbt build, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's Java code has 9,282 production line(s), 0 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: this repository declares no async functions, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X10 Duplicated predicate — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X12 Unreachable branch — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X13 Undrained process stream — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Java was read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller — a Java request off Android takes no token: it is cancelled through the handle it returns (Future.cancel, Call.cancel, a Disposable), ambiently (io.grpc.Context) or by interrupting its thread, not through a parameter
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Serious — 9 finding(s)
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- CsvReader.readStreamLine (cognitive 29) src/main/java/sample/context/report/csv/CsvReader.java:97
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- CsvReader.parseRow (cognitive 25) src/main/java/sample/context/report/csv/CsvReader.java:164
D3 · God Classes
- TooManyMethods: DateUtils src/main/java/sample/util/DateUtils.java:23
D4 · Code Duplication
- Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/main/java/sample/context/orm/JpqlBuilder.java:149
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) src/main/java/sample/context/audit/AuditHandler.java:143
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) src/main/java/sample/context/orm/JpqlBuilder.java:150
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/main/java/sample/context/audit/AuditHandler.java:167
P1 · CI/CD gates
- No CI pipeline
X3 · Exception handling
- Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/main/java/sample/usecase/admin/AssetAdminService.java:110
Minor — 44 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/context/orm/JpqlBuilder.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/controller/RestErrorAdvice.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/model/asset/CashInOut.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/context/audit/AuditHandler.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/context/orm/OrmTemplate.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/context/report/csv/CsvReader.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/util/DateUtils.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/ApplicationSecurityConfig.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/context/orm/OrmRepository.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/context/report/csv/CsvWriter.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/util/Encryptor.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/usecase/admin/AssetAdminService.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/context/actor/Actor.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/model/master/Login.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/context/ValidationException.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/model/account/Account.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/controller/ControllerUtils.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/model/master/Staff.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/util/Calculator.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/context/orm/TxTemplate.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/usecase/SecurityService.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/usecase/AssetService.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/context/GenericRepository.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/context/support/AppSetting.java:1
- Orphaned file src/main/java/sample/model/BusinessDayHandler.java:1
X4 · Structured logging
- Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/main/java/sample/context/mail/MailHandler.java:38
- Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/main/java/sample/usecase/admin/AssetAdminService.java:74
- Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/main/java/sample/usecase/admin/AssetAdminService.java:106
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
D26 · Project Cohesion
- Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
D28 · Secrets (history)
- REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Dormant codebase
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No SAST
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No changelog
X5 · Nullable reference types
- Java packages are not null-marked everywhere
Minor — 107 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-configuration-processor
- Outdated (compile): org.projectlombok:lombok
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter-actuator
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework.boot:spring-boot
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework:spring-core
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework:spring-jcl
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework:spring-context
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework:spring-aop
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework:spring-beans
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework:spring-expression
- Outdated (compile): io.micrometer:micrometer-observation
- Outdated (compile): io.micrometer:micrometer-commons
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-autoconfigure
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter-logging
- Outdated (compile): ch.qos.logback:logback-classic
- Outdated (compile): ch.qos.logback:logback-core
- Outdated (compile): org.slf4j:slf4j-api
- Outdated (compile): org.apache.logging.log4j:log4j-to-slf4j
- Outdated (compile): org.apache.logging.log4j:log4j-api
- Outdated (compile): org.slf4j:jul-to-slf4j
- Outdated (compile): jakarta.annotation:jakarta.annotation-api
- Outdated (compile): org.yaml:snakeyaml
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-actuator-autoconfigure
- Outdated (compile): org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-actuator
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-7de72457b829496cb589c2b89f18ff85/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 2 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-7de72457b829496cb589c2b89f18ff85/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 2 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off . | 0 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here) | — | none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet). | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 2 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here) | — | none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet). | 0 | — |