Public report — joern, published 29 Jul 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdogby Canine Development 29-07-2026 @ 18:18 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Joernio/joern

72% Strong
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
lower third — near Adequate
Architecture 85% Strong Readiness 81% Strong Security 71% Strong Maturity 67% Adequate

Large · 110,012 LoC · rebuild ~2.2 person-years · weakest lens: Maturity (67%)

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

15/16dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 1 LLM-assisted, advisory
30findings with an exact file:lineof 46 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
16/94dimensions across the health lenses110012 LoC — wide & deep

Executive summary

Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.

joernio/joern is in good health (72%). It can be evolved and depended on with normal engineering discipline; the items below are improvements, not blockers.

It is strongest in Architecture (85%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Readiness (81%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Maturity (67%) — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation); 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README (Documentation (README)); 3 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) (Knowledge Freshness).

For scale: Large (~110,012 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~2.2 person-years (~1–5 engineers). Approximate, ±~30%.

Encouragingly, the gaps are in documentation and release process — not in the code's correctness, structure or security, which are strong. They're low-risk to close, and doing so would lift the grade without re-engineering anything that already works.

Architecture 85% Strong Maturity 67% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 81% Strong Security 71% Strong
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Maturity 67% · 50% weightSecurity 71% · 27% weightReadiness 81% · 15% weightArchitecture 85% · 8% weight

Raise Maturity 67 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 72 → ~73.

Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
New since the last scan (8+)

8 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-20) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D29 · High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml
  • D29 · High: tainted-sql-string joern-cli/frontends/javasrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/javasrc2cpg/astcreation/statements/AstForForLoopsCreator.scala
  • D29 · Medium: phpinfo-use composer-setup.php
  • D29 · Medium: sax-dtd-enabled semanticcpg/src/main/scala/io/shiftleft/semanticcpg/utils/SecureXmlParsing.scala
  • D35 · Change coupling: AstForDeclarationsCreator.scala ↔ AstForPrimitivesCreator.scala joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForDeclarationsCreator.scala
  • D35 · Change coupling: AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala ↔ AstForSyntaxCollectionCreator.scala joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala
  • D35 · Change coupling: AstForExpressionsCreator.scala ↔ AstForPrimitivesCreator.scala joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExpressionsCreator.scala
  • D36 · PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €110,000–€540,000
Cost to rebuild€110,000–€540,000 (1.1–3.4 person-years (1,789–5,674 h), ~1–5 engineers)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor1.0× (at 72% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeLarge · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~2.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€320,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 67% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

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

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 3 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with JavaScriptInterface.scala, ArbitraryFileWrites.scala, Intents.scala.
+3.7 pts · Low effort · Knowledge Freshness
2
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
+6.6 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation
3
Resolve the 4 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor.
+3.1 pts · Low effort · Bus Factor

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.

At a glance — Architecture · 85% · Strong

The Good
D35 · PHP Change Coupling 8.5

At a glance — Maturity · 67% · Adequate · gated by M2

The Good
D16 · PHP Bus Factor 8.0 D21 · PHP Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · PHP Knowledge Freshness 8.6 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.5 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Ugly
M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 81% · Strong

The Good
D13 · PHP Secret Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 7.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 7.0

At a glance — Security · 71% · Strong

The Good
D28 · PHP Secrets (history) 10.0 D31 · PHP IaC & Container Security 7.1
The Bad
D29 · PHP Static Analysis (SAST) 6.4 D36 · PHP Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 5.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration13High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection4High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by establishing an ADR log to record significant architectural decisions and their rationale. Next, update the root README with an 'Architecture' or 'How it works' section to clarify the system's high-level design. Address the three orphaned knowledge findings in JavaScriptInterface.scala, ArbitraryFileWrites.scala, and Intents.scala to improve knowledge freshness. Mitigate off-boarding risks by resolving the four bus factor findings. Finally, resolve the two high-severity static analysis issues in dependabot.yml and AstForForLoops.scala.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 3 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with JavaScriptInterface.scala, ArbitraryFileWrites.scala, Intents.scala.+3.7 ptsLowKnowledge Freshness
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.+6.6 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Resolve the 4 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor.+3.1 ptsLowBus Factor
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.+4.9 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)
Resolve the 2 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with dependabot.yml, AstForForLoopsCreator.scala.+1.4 ptsLowStatic Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 7 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (4), Dockerfile.alma, Dockerfile.alma8.+1.4 ptsLowIaC & Container Security
Resolve the 2 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with composer-setup.php, SecureXmlParsing.scala.+1.2 ptsLowStatic Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 1 No SBOM finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+1.1 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 15 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 13% slop · 60% mixed · 27% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
.devcontainer/Dockerfile2.7SlopIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
Dockerfile3.7SlopIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
ci/Dockerfile.alma5.1MixedIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
ci/Dockerfile.alma85.1MixedIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
ci/Dockerfile.slim5.1MixedIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala7.2MixedChange Coupling: Change coupling: AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala ↔ AstForTypeSyntaxCreator.scala
.github/dependabot.yml7.2MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: dependabot-missing-cooldown
joern-cli/frontends/javasrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/javasrc2cpg/astcreation/statements/AstForForLoopsCreator.scala7.2MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: tainted-sql-string
joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExpressionsCreator.scala7.8MixedChange Coupling: Change coupling: AstForExpressionsCreator.scala ↔ AstForTemplateDomCreator.scala
composer-setup.php7.9MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: phpinfo-use
semanticcpg/src/main/scala/io/shiftleft/semanticcpg/utils/SecureXmlParsing.scala7.9MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: sax-dtd-enabled
joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForDeclSyntaxCreator.scala8.5Near-cleanChange Coupling: Change coupling: AstForDeclSyntaxCreator.scala ↔ AstForTypeSyntaxCreator.scala
joern-cli/frontends/javasrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/javasrc2cpg/astcreation/expressions/AstForNameExpressionsCreator.scala8.5Near-cleanChange Coupling: Change coupling: AstForNameExpressionsCreator.scala ↔ AstForSimpleExpressionsCreator.scala
joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForStatementsCreator.scala8.5Near-cleanChange Coupling: Change coupling: AstForStatementsCreator.scala ↔ AstForTemplateDomCreator.scala
joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForDeclarationsCreator.scala8.5Near-cleanChange Coupling: Change coupling: AstForDeclarationsCreator.scala ↔ AstForPrimitivesCreator.scala

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. 15 of 16 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 1 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.4 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 16 dimensions across the health lenses
D13D16D21D28D29D31D34D35D36M1M2M3M4P1P3P4

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 30 of 46 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication—✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.302✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.302✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019faf19-2e02-72f4-8ed6-814a568e3625.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

  • D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • 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.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (2): D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").

Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

76 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForDeclSyntaxCreator.scala.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 · ×4
Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

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

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

Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)6.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

High: dependabot-missing-cooldown · ×2.github/dependabot.yml:3detected by semgrep finding
Medium: phpinfo-use · ×2composer-setup.php:466detected by semgrep finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with dependabot.yml, AstForForLoopsCreator.scala. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with composer-setup.php, SecureXmlParsing.scala. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security7.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (Dockerfile/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

13 finding(s): 0 critical, 7 high, 6 medium, 0 low.

High IaC: DS-0002 · ×7.devcontainer/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding
Medium IaC: DS-0001 · ×6.devcontainer/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 7 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (4), Dockerfile.alma, Dockerfile.alma8. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 6 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (3), Dockerfile.alma, Dockerfile.alma8. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness8.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

56 of 389 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is querydb/src/main/scala/io/joern/scanners/android/JavaScriptInterface.scala.

Orphaned knowledge · ×3querydb/src/main/scala/io/joern/scanners/android/JavaScriptInterface.scala
Further orphaned files (smaller)

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with JavaScriptInterface.scala, ArbitraryFileWrites.scala, Intents.scala. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D35 · Change Coupling8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: AstForDeclSyntaxCreator.scala↔AstForTypeSyntaxCreator.scala 87%; AstForNameExpressionsCreator.scala↔AstForSimpleExpressionsCreator.scala 80%; AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala↔AstForTypeSyntaxCreator.scala 80%

Change coupling: AstForDeclSyntaxCreator.scala ↔ AstForTypeSyntaxCreator.scala · ×10joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForDeclSyntaxCreator.scala

What to do

  1. Resolve the 10 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala (4), AstForExpressionsCreator.scala (2), AstForDeclSyntaxCreator.scala. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).

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

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block
No build provenance
No SBOM

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 No SBOM finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

M1 · Documentation (README)8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 10 of 23 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 0.9 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.

What to do

  • Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

P3 · Security & performance tooling7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Architecture85%StrongStrongest area.
Maturity67%Adequate — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness81%StrongSolid.
Security71%StrongSolid.
Not included — 78 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
  • AX10 Code composition — not assessed — code composition is computed by ROLE over the .NET document set and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
  • AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over the .NET project-reference graph and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over the .NET project-reference graph and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from the .NET project graph (projects, types, namespaces) and no such graph was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over the .NET type surface and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from the .NET project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) and no such graph was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
  • C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom 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 C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom 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.
  • C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom 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 C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom 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 C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom 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.
  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.java, .py, .scala) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it, so cyclomatic complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
  • D10 Test Quality — ~127214 lines of test source are present (.scala, .java, .kt) but the test-quality collector reads C# only, so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
  • D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (an sbt build (build.sbt)), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — complexity unreadable for .java, .py, .scala — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
  • D17 Explicit Debt — explicit-debt markers are read through a C# workspace today, so they were not read for this repository's language — this asserts nothing about how many markers the code carries. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • 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.
  • D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.java, .py, .scala) had no cognitive complexity computed for it, so cognitive complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
  • D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.java, .php, .py, .scala) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["Acme.Catalog"]`.
  • D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D3 God Classes — Most of this repository's production source (.java, .py, .scala) was not read by god-class detection, so class size was not assessed for the languages that are the product — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's class size. 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 (an sbt build (build.sbt) — not scanned yet) — where an OSV-supported manifest exists, dependency vulnerabilities for this repository are reported under D38 instead.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • 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.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
  • 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.
  • D4 Code Duplication — Most of this repository's production source (.java, .py, .scala) was not read by duplication detection, so code duplication was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's duplication. Not scored: no source of those file kinds was exposed to the token comparison by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
  • D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB class graph, and this repository's production source is .java, .php, .py, .scala, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
  • D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.scala, .java, .kt) but the test-pyramid classifier reads C# only, so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — only 1/3 markers (1 value object(s))
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
  • P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads .NET source (ILogger/Serilog, OpenTelemetry, health checks) and no such source carries this repository's product — because it is written in another language, or because the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET logging idiom is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
  • P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from EF Core usage in .NET source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`sbt clean coverage test coverageReport` via sbt-scoverage) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads .NET source (allocation-aware APIs — Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc — and a BenchmarkDotNet suite) and no such source was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads .NET source (allocation-aware APIs — Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc — and a BenchmarkDotNet suite) and no such source was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads .NET source (allocation-aware APIs — Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc — and a BenchmarkDotNet suite) and no such source was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom 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 are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 12 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×7
  • High IaC: DS-0002 .devcontainer/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
  • High IaC: DS-0015 .devcontainer/Dockerfile — 'yum clean all' missing
  • High IaC: DS-0002 Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
  • High IaC: DS-0029 Dockerfile — 'apt-get' missing '--no-install-recommends'
  • High IaC: DS-0002 ci/Dockerfile.alma — Image user should not be 'root'
  • High IaC: DS-0002 ci/Dockerfile.alma8 — Image user should not be 'root'
  • High IaC: DS-0002 ci/Dockerfile.slim — Image user should not be 'root'
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned knowledge · ×3
  • Orphaned knowledge querydb/src/main/scala/io/joern/scanners/android/JavaScriptInterface.scala — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge querydb/src/main/scala/io/joern/scanners/android/ArbitraryFileWrites.scala — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge querydb/src/main/scala/io/joern/scanners/android/Intents.scala — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · High · ×2
  • High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:3 — This Dependabot configuration does not set a cooldown period. Newly published packages can be malicious or unstable. Add a `cooldown` block with `default-days: 7` to each `package-ecosystem` entry under `updates` to wait 7 days before proposing updates to newly published package versions. Reference: https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/dependabot/dependabot-version-updates/configuration-options-for-the-dependabot.yml-file#cooldown. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is. This configuration file has 2 such entries; one cooldown decision clears them all — reported once.
  • High: tainted-sql-string joern-cli/frontends/javasrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/javasrc2cpg/astcreation/statements/AstForForLoopsCreator.scala:468 — User data flows into this manually-constructed SQL string. User data can be safely inserted into SQL strings using prepared statements or an object-relational mapper (ORM). Manually-constructed SQL strings is a possible indicator of SQL injection, which could let an attacker steal or manipulate data from the database. Instead, use prepared statements (`connection.PreparedStatement`) or a safe library. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Warning — 20 finding(s)
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×10
  • Change coupling: AstForDeclSyntaxCreator.scala ↔ AstForTypeSyntaxCreator.scala joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForDeclSyntaxCreator.scala — `joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForDeclSyntaxCreator.scala` and `joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForTypeSyntaxCreator.scala` change together 87% of the time (13 of the 15 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. They already sit in the same directory, so if they share structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: AstForNameExpressionsCreator.scala ↔ AstForSimpleExpressionsCreator.scala joern-cli/frontends/javasrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/javasrc2cpg/astcreation/expressions/AstForNameExpressionsCreator.scala — `joern-cli/frontends/javasrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/javasrc2cpg/astcreation/expressions/AstForNameExpressionsCreator.scala` and `joern-cli/frontends/javasrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/javasrc2cpg/astcreation/expressions/AstForSimpleExpressionsCreator.scala` change together 80% of the time (12 of the 15 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. They already sit in the same directory, so if they share structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala ↔ AstForTypeSyntaxCreator.scala joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala — `joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala` and `joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForTypeSyntaxCreator.scala` change together 80% of the time (12 of the 15 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. They already sit in the same directory, so if they share structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala ↔ AstNodeBuilder.scala joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala — `joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala` and `joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstNodeBuilder.scala` change together 77% of the time (20 of the 26 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. They already sit in the same directory, so if they share structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: AstForStatementsCreator.scala ↔ AstForTemplateDomCreator.scala joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForStatementsCreator.scala — `joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForStatementsCreator.scala` and `joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForTemplateDomCreator.scala` change together 75% of the time (12 of the 16 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. They already sit in the same directory, so if they share structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: AstForExpressionsCreator.scala ↔ AstForTemplateDomCreator.scala joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExpressionsCreator.scala — `joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExpressionsCreator.scala` and `joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForTemplateDomCreator.scala` change together 75% of the time (12 of the 16 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. They already sit in the same directory, so if they share structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: AstForDeclarationsCreator.scala ↔ AstForPrimitivesCreator.scala joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForDeclarationsCreator.scala — `joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForDeclarationsCreator.scala` and `joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForPrimitivesCreator.scala` change together 70% of the time (16 of the 23 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. They already sit in the same directory, so if they share structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala ↔ AstForSyntaxCollectionCreator.scala joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala — `joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala` and `joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForSyntaxCollectionCreator.scala` change together 70% of the time (16 of the 23 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. They already sit in the same directory, so if they share structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: AstForExpressionsCreator.scala ↔ AstForPrimitivesCreator.scala joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExpressionsCreator.scala — `joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExpressionsCreator.scala` and `joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForPrimitivesCreator.scala` change together 70% of the time (16 of the 23 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. They already sit in the same directory, so if they share structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala ↔ AstForStmtSyntaxCreator.scala joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala — `joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala` and `joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForStmtSyntaxCreator.scala` change together 69% of the time (18 of the 26 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. They already sit in the same directory, so if they share structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise break the coupling.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×6
  • Medium IaC: DS-0001 .devcontainer/Dockerfile — ':latest' tag used
  • Medium IaC: DS-0013 .devcontainer/Dockerfile — 'RUN cd ...' to change directory
  • Medium IaC: DS-0013 Dockerfile — 'RUN cd ...' to change directory
  • Medium IaC: DS-0001 ci/Dockerfile.alma — ':latest' tag used
  • Medium IaC: DS-0001 ci/Dockerfile.alma8 — ':latest' tag used
  • Medium IaC: DS-0001 ci/Dockerfile.slim — ':latest' tag used
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · Medium · ×2
  • Medium: phpinfo-use composer-setup.php:466 — The 'phpinfo' function may reveal sensitive information about your environment.
  • Medium: sax-dtd-enabled semanticcpg/src/main/scala/io/shiftleft/semanticcpg/utils/SecureXmlParsing.scala:13 — XML processor being instantiated without calling the `setFeature` functions that are generally used for disabling entity processing. User controlled data in XML Parsers can result in XML Internal Entity Processing vulnerabilities like the disclosure of confidential data, denial of service, Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF), port scanning. Make sure to disable entity processing functionality. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
D19 · Documentation Quality · LLM evaluation failed · ×1
  • LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.findings[0].suggestion | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 1077.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block · ×1
  • PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block — 1 workflow(s) triggered by pull_request declare no `permissions:` block (pr.yml) and so run with the repository's default GITHUB_TOKEN scope, while sibling workflows in the same repository are already scoped. Pull-request runs build the least-trusted code in the repository; give each of these workflows its own least-privilege block — `permissions: {contents: read}` at the top of the workflow, widened per job only where a job genuinely writes.
Recommendation — 12 finding(s)
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×4
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 53 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForDeclSyntaxCreator.scala, joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForExprSyntaxCreator.scala, joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForTypesCreator.scala, joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstCreatorHelper.scala, joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/utils/SwiftTypesProvider.scala, joern-cli/frontends/jssrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/jssrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForStatementsCreator.scala, joern-cli/frontends/swiftsrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/swiftsrc2cpg/astcreation/AstForSyntaxCreator.scala, joern-cli/frontends/c2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/c2cpg/astcreation/AstForExpressionsCreator.scala (+45 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #2 — If anonymized user #2 becomes unavailable, 10 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: joern-cli/frontends/javasrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/javasrc2cpg/astcreation/expressions/AstForLambdasCreator.scala, joern-cli/frontends/javasrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/javasrc2cpg/astcreation/expressions/AstForCallExpressionsCreator.scala, joern-cli/frontends/javasrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/javasrc2cpg/astcreation/expressions/AstForPatternExpressionsCreator.scala, joern-cli/frontends/javasrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/javasrc2cpg/typesolvers/noncaching/JarTypeSolver.scala, joern-cli/frontends/javasrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/javasrc2cpg/astcreation/statements/AstForStatementsCreator.scala, joern-cli/frontends/javasrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/javasrc2cpg/typesolvers/SimpleCombinedTypeSolver.scala, joern-cli/frontends/javasrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/javasrc2cpg/typesolvers/EagerSourceTypeSolver.scala, joern-cli/frontends/javasrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/javasrc2cpg/passes/TypeInferencePass.scala (+2 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #3 — If anonymized user #3 becomes unavailable, 4 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: semanticcpg/src/main/scala/io/shiftleft/semanticcpg/accesspath/AccessPath.scala, joern-cli/frontends/pysrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/pysrc2cpg/memop/MemoryOperationCalculator.scala, joern-cli/frontends/kotlin2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/kotlin2cpg/passes/SamTypeDeclPass.scala, joern-cli/frontends/javasrc2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/javasrc2cpg/jartypereader/model/Model.scala. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #4 — If anonymized user #4 becomes unavailable, 3 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: joern-cli/frontends/rust2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/rust2cpg/astcreation/RustVisitor.scala, joern-cli/frontends/rust2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/rust2cpg/astcreation/AstCreator.scala, joern-cli/frontends/rust2cpg/src/main/scala/io/joern/rust2cpg/astcreation/RustFullNames.scala. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D11 · Test Reliability · Test reliability not included · ×1
  • Test reliability not included — Test source is present (.scala, .java, .kt) but the built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem, so flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · complexity unreadable for .java, .py, .scala · ×1
  • complexity unreadable for .java, .py, .scala — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured — A hotspot is churn × complexity. Churn was measured (45751 line(s) across the 90-day window), but no complexity could be computed for .java, .py, .scala, which is most of this repository's production code — so every churned file would score as complexity 0 and the hotspot list would be empty no matter how tangled the code is. Not scored — this is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
D16 · Bus Factor · Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1
  • Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 4 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (76 single-owned of 389 analysed files in total).
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1
  • Further orphaned files (smaller) — 53 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than listed individually (56 orphaned of 389 analysed files in total).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No build provenance · ×1
  • No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI (e.g. slsa-github-generator, actions/attest-build-provenance).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No SBOM · ×1
  • No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found — produce one with what your ecosystem ships (`syft` (or `anchore/sbom-action` in CI) over the source tree or released image). Publish it as a release asset (`*.spdx.json` / `*.cdx.json`) so consumers can see what they are installing.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Scanner failed to run · ×1
  • Scanner failed to run — not a clean result — osv-scanner exited 128 with no findings — the advisory database was likely unreachable. The scanner exited non-zero and produced no findings (typically the advisory DB was unreachable), so this is reported as a measurement gap rather than a clean pass.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not included · ×1
  • Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector — Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.scala, .java, .kt) 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 (`sbt clean coverage test coverageReport` via sbt-scoverage, or JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report` or the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored.
Info — 2 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Dependency hygiene not measured · ×1
  • Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene — This repository's dependency manifest (an sbt build (build.sbt)) was found, but this pass cannot parse it for hygiene, so no package was assessed. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED — a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. This row is about dependency HYGIENE — outdated, deprecated or unmaintained direct dependencies; known CVEs in the same dependency graph are a separate question, reported under D38 wherever the manifest is OSV-readable.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .4artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesnone (no readable dependency manifest)—none (no readable dependency manifest): not present in this environment0—
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy config --format json --quiet .13artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.0—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner --format json --recursive .0—
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0—

Run 019faf19-2e02-72f4-8ed6-814a568e3625 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 12 · Warnings: 20 · Recommendations: 12 · Info: 2 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 29-07-2026 @ 18:18 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

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

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