Public report — modular-monolith-with-ddd, published 27 Jun 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdog 27-06-2026 @ 08:04 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Kgrzybek/modular-Monolith-With-Ddd

No regression coverage not measured
65% At Risk

Medium · 23,660 LoC · 47 projects · rebuild ~0.3 person-years · weakest lens: Code Health (59%)

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

63/63dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0
103findings with an exact file:lineof 139 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
63/103dimensions across the health lenses23660 LoC · 47 projects — 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.

kgrzybek/modular-monolith-with-ddd is in a workable but fragile state (65%). It is not in crisis, but it carries material risk that makes change slower and incidents harder to contain if left unaddressed.

It is strongest in Event-Driven (90%) — its messaging keeps components properly decoupled. Architecture (87%) is solid too.

Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.

The area that most needs attention is Code Health (59%) — changes there are slower and more error-prone. Domain Modelling (66%) is the next concern — the domain model leaks and drifts, so business rules are harder to trust and change.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException… (Incompleteness & stubs); Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects… (Nullable reference types); Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) (Async correctness).

For scale: Medium (~23,660 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.3 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Event-Driven foundation (90%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

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.
Code Health 59% · 46% weightDomain Modelling 66% · 25% weightReadiness 66% · 14% weightSecurity 75% · 8% weightMaturity 76% · 4% weightArchitecture 87% · 2% weightEvent-Driven 90% · 1% weight

Raise Code Health 59 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 65 → ~69.

Code composition — where the lines go Plumbing-heavy — business logic is 9% of hand-written app code; most lines are wiring, declarations and straight-line glue. Fine for an integration/CRUD service; worth a look if this is meant to be logic-rich.
Business logic 7%Plumbing 66%Tests 27%
New since the last scan (11+)

11 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-06-21) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D4 · Duplicated block (28 lines × 4) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Mediation/MediatorModule.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (19 lines × 4) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/LoggingCommandHandlerWithResultDecorator.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (19 lines × 4) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/Outbox/OutboxModule.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/SerilogLogProvider.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/ProcessingModule.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Mediation/MediatorModule.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/QuartzStartup.cs
  • D5 · Off the main sequence: CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Infrastructure
  • D5 · Off the main sequence: CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Infrastructure
  • D5 · Off the main sequence: CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.Infrastructure
  • SC1 · NuGet dependencies are not locked

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 — €17,000–€82,000
Cost to rebuild€17,000–€82,000 (0.2–0.5 person-years (276–866 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityVery high — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.9× (at 65% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeMedium · 54% boilerplate · 37% straight-line · 9% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€49,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Code Health at 59% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Very high (×1.8) — service/app, DDD/clean architecture, CQRS, domain model, event-driven integration × a 0.9× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. 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 2 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with _build.csproj (2).
+4.9 pts · Low effort · Explicit Debt
2
Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
+5.5 pts · Medium effort · Incompleteness & stubs
3
Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.
+5.5 pts · Medium effort · Nullable reference types

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Code Health at 59%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.3 person-years rebuild (23,660 LoC) · weakest lens: Code Health 59%
→ Direct remediation budget at Code Health first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Root cause: an un-encapsulated domain · Medium · Root cause
34 findings across public setters, anemic types and primitive ids share one root cause — the domain layer doesn't protect its own invariants. Fixing the encapsulation pattern resolves them together, rather than chasing each finding.
Evidence: DM5 setters: 0 · DM4 anemic: 3 · DM2 primitive ids: 31
→ Address encapsulation as one pattern (private setters + behaviour + strongly-typed ids), not 100 separate findings.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
Improving trajectory · Info · Trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+2.0 pts/run over 9 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Evidence: trajectory: +2.0 pts/run over 9 runs

Trajectory

Where this codebase is heading — something a one-shot snapshot cannot show. 65 ▲ 1 over 9 runs.

025507510018 Junnow
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurityDomain ModellingEvent-Driven

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Each box is a bounded context (its layer projects grouped, or a project count when large); arrows show dependencies between contexts. A shared kernel is where many arrows converge.

arch MyMeetings.API MyMeetings.API MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.Application.UnitTests MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.Application.UnitTests MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.IntegrationTests MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.IntegrationTests DatabaseMigrator DatabaseMigrator _build _build ctx:MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks Application · Domain · Infrastructure ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Administration MyMeetings.Modules.Administration Application · Domain · Infrastructure ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.IntegrationEvents MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.IntegrationEvents IntegrationEvents ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Administration->ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.IntegrationEvents ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.IntegrationEvents MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.IntegrationEvents IntegrationEvents ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Administration->ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.IntegrationEvents ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.IntegrationEvents MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.IntegrationEvents IntegrationEvents ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Administration->ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.IntegrationEvents ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.IntegrationEvents MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.IntegrationEvents IntegrationEvents ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings Application · Domain · Infrastructure ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings->ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.IntegrationEvents ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.IntegrationEvents MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.IntegrationEvents IntegrationEvents ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings->ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.IntegrationEvents ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings->ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.IntegrationEvents ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings->ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.IntegrationEvents ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Payments MyMeetings.Modules.Payments Application · Domain · Infrastructure ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Payments->ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.IntegrationEvents ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Payments->ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.IntegrationEvents ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Payments->ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.IntegrationEvents ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Payments->ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.IntegrationEvents ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations Application · Domain · Infrastructure ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations->ctx:MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess Application · Domain · Infrastructure ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations->ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess->ctx:MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.IntegrationEvents __more__ +1 more contexts

At a glance — Code Health · 59% · Adequate · gated by X5

At a glance — Architecture · 87% · Strong

At a glance — Maturity · 76% · Adequate · gated by D34

At a glance — Readiness · 66% · Adequate

At a glance — Security · 75% · Strong

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 66% · Adequate · gated by DM2

At a glance — Event-Driven · 90% · Exemplary

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 Misconfiguration7High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures3High / Critical

Roadmap

Top priorities: Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live; Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`; Sync-over-async (deadlock risk).

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 2 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with _build.csproj (2).+4.9 ptsLowExplicit Debt
Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.+5.5 ptsMediumIncompleteness & stubs
Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.+5.5 ptsMediumNullable reference types
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)+5.5 ptsMediumAsync correctness
Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.+5.4 ptsMediumCancellation propagation
Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.+2.0 ptsMediumStrongly-typed ids
Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.+2.0 ptsMediumRich vs anemic model
Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.+1.9 ptsMediumIdempotency

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 36 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 36% mixed · 64% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
src/Database/Dockerfile4.8MixedIaC & Container Security: Critical IaC: DS-0031
src/Dockerfile6.2MixedIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
build/_build.csproj6.4MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Meetings/MeetingComments/MeetingCommentsController.cs6.5MixedChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: MeetingCommentsController.cs ↔ MeetingComment.cs
src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/SerilogLogProvider.cs7.0MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (16 lines × 4)
src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Payments/PriceListItems/PriceListItemsController.cs7.0MixedChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: PriceListItemsController.cs ↔ PriceListItem.cs
src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/appsettings.json7.2MixedSecrets (history): Secret: generic-api-key
src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/tempkey.rsa7.2MixedSecrets (history): Secret: generic-api-key
src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/Authentication/Authenticate/PasswordManager.cs7.4MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (19 lines × 2)
src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Mediation/MediatorModule.cs7.8MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (28 lines × 4)
src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/Outbox/OutboxModule.cs7.8MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (19 lines × 4)
src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/ActivatePriceListItem/ActivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs7.8MixedChange Coupling: Change coupling: ActivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs ↔ DeactivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs
src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/GetPriceListItem/PriceListItemsProjector.cs7.8MixedChange Coupling: Change coupling: PriceListItemsProjector.cs ↔ PriceListItem.cs
src/Tests/SUT/TestCases/CleanDatabaseTestCase.cs8.0Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: Prepare
src/Tests/SUT/TestCases/CreateMeeting.cs8.0Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: Prepare
src/Tests/SUT/TestCases/OnlyAdminTestCase.cs8.0Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: Prepare
src/Modules/Meetings/Domain/MeetingComments/MeetingComment.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable
src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Configuration/Authorization/AuthorizationChecker.cs8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: AuthorizationChecker.CheckAllEndpoints (cognitive 16)
src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/QuartzStartup.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (56 lines × 2)
src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/EventsBus/IntegrationEventGenericHandler.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (21 lines × 4)

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. 63 of 63 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); none rely on LLM judgement. Overall confidence is 0.7 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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 — 63 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D20D23D26D28D29D31D34D35AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX7AX9C1C2DM1DM2DM3DM4DM5DM6DM8ED1ED2ED3ED4ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3P1P2P3P4P8S1X1X2X3X4X5

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, 103 of 139 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 coverage10.0.301✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.301✓ 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 measurement◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019f081b-7e32-7cd4-a91e-02a6d66ffce4.

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.

  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.

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.

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling: Boundary leakage is detected from type references across detected contexts — leaks that flow through primitives, serialization or shared infrastructure may not surface as a typed reference.
  • 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.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
  • DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
  • DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
  • ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
  • 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): D20, ED5. 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

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.

Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.

Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was AuthorizationChecker.CheckAllEndpoints at 16.

AuthorizationChecker.CheckAllEndpoints (cognitive 16)src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Configuration/Authorization/AuthorizationChecker.cs:9

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D3 · God Classes10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").

Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

D4 · Code Duplication9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.

Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

17 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (19 lines × 4) · ×2src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/LoggingCommandHandlerWithResultDecorator.cs:32
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×2src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/Outbox/OutboxModule.cs:22
Duplicated block (56 lines × 2)src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/QuartzStartup.cs:28
Duplicated block (28 lines × 4)src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Mediation/MediatorModule.cs:24
Duplicated block (21 lines × 4)src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/EventsBus/IntegrationEventGenericHandler.cs:17

+ 10 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D5 · Coupling9.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.

Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

47 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).

Off the main sequence: CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.IntegrationEvents · ×6

What to do

  1. Resolve the 6 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.

Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

6 of 95 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: SerilogLogProvider (LCOM4 4) · ×6src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/SerilogLogProvider.cs:6

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.

Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

277 test methods: 239 unit, 38 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

Unit tests
Integration tests
BDD tests
E2E tests

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D10 · Test Quality9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.

Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 3 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 280 tests.

No assertions: Prepare · ×3src/Tests/SUT/TestCases/CleanDatabaseTestCase.cs:12

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.

Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 flaky across 3 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky); integration: measured (0 flaky); other: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.

Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md.

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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · 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.

D14 · License Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.

Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 5 packages use a banned license.

Licenses scanned

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.

Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.

Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 23460 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.8.

NoWarnInCsproj · ×2build/_build.csproj:7
BarePragmaDisablesrc/Modules/Meetings/Domain/MeetingComments/MeetingComment.cs:71
Justified suppression · ×5src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Configuration/Authorization/HasPermissionAuthorizationHandler.cs:43

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D18 · Solution Shape9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.

Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

47 projects, 1064 .cs files, 32419 hand-written lines of code (23460 production / 8959 test), 96 inter-project edges (build failed).

Shell project: CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.IntegrationEvents · ×2src/Modules/UserAccess/IntegrationEvents/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.IntegrationEvents.csproj
Build did not complete in the analyzer
CompanyName.MyMeetings.API (Production)src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API.csproj
CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Application (Production)src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Application.csproj
CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Application (Production)src/Modules/Meetings/Application/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Application.csproj

+ 44 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).

Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Critical / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d20_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether domain types (IDs, enums, value objects) leak across bounded-context boundaries.

Method: Cross-context domain-type leakage via Roslyn structural classification (strongly-typed IDs / value objects) over every public surface. Exhaustive, deterministic, type-level aggregate-boundary check.

Coverage: Bounded contexts derived from NAMESPACE prefix (or graph-inferred where available); cross-boundary domain-type leakage then checked exhaustively over every public member of every type.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 domain type(s) cross context boundaries across 9 contexts.

Cross-context type MeetingGroupProposalAcceptedIntegrationEvent (Administration → Meetings)
Administration: 1 contract type(s) expose producer-owned ids/enums
Meetings: 2 contract type(s) expose producer-owned ids/enums
Payments: 1 contract type(s) expose producer-owned ids/enums
Registrations: 1 contract type(s) expose producer-owned ids/enums

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d23_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether each project is a focused, coherent unit rather than an oversized grab-bag.

Method: Project size overshoot penalties (LoC / public-type count / namespace count, 2-of-3 flag) weighted by log magnitude. Exhaustive across projects, deterministic, LLM-independent.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 of 47 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D28 · Secrets (history)8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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.

Secret: generic-api-key · ×2src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/appsettings.json:17detected by gitleaks finding
Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with appsettings.json, tempkey.rsa. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep --config auto across the repo; severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a 0-10 wide normalizer. 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security8.6 / 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

7 finding(s): 1 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 4 low.

High IaC: DS-0002 · ×2src/Database/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding
Critical IaC: DS-0031src/Database/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding
Low IaC: DS-0005 · ×4src/Database/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Critical IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 4 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 recommendation-level).

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

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

100 of 100 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Modules/Meetings/Domain/Meetings/Meeting.cs.

Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase 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 Coupling9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: ActivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs↔DeactivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs 70%; ActivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs↔ChangePriceListItemAttributesCommandHandler.cs 60%; ChangePriceListItemAttributesCommandHandler.cs↔DeactivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs 60%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: MeetingCommentsController.cs ↔ MeetingComment.cs · ×3src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Meetings/MeetingComments/MeetingCommentsController.cs
Change coupling: ActivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs ↔ DeactivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs · ×7src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/ActivatePriceListItem/ActivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX1 · Captive dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.

Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.

AX10 · Code composition5.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified.

Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.

Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.

AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).

Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.

AX4 · Dependency direction10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.

Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.

AX5 · Architecture & structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.

Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.

AX6 · Interface segregation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface member counts; fat-interface threshold (over 15 members) flagged per type. Deterministic, type-level.

AX7 · Slice cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether feature slices stay independent (no direct cross-slice references) — the discipline that makes vertical-slice architecture pay off.

Method: Roslyn scan (vertical-slice gated): feature slices resolved from namespaces (.Features.*, .Slices.*) or project names; cross-slice type references detected. Deterministic, traceable.

AX9 · CQS / query purity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.

Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.

Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.

C1 · Data Protection6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether sensitive data is encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are vaulted.

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: encryption presence (EF ColumnEncryption, key-vault references, HTTPS enforcement) and key-derivation KDF detection. Deterministic.

What to do

  • Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.
C2 · Access Controls10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — [Authorize]/policies or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.

DM1 · Aggregate boundaries10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates reference each other by identity (id) rather than by direct object reference — the core DDD consistency-boundary rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): aggregate roots identified by convention; each aggregate field checked for direct references to other aggregates versus id-only. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: aggregate roots identified by AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot base/interface NAME convention; reference-by-identity then checked exhaustively within that set — a root not using those names is invisible.

DM2 · Strongly-typed ids3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — How much of the domain uses strongly-typed ids vs raw Guid/string/int — adoption curve, not all-or-nothing.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): strongly-typed id adoption on domain entities/events; raw Guid/int/string ids counted versus wrapped types. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Coverage: Population: id-like members by *Id/*Key NAME suffix; strongly-typed-ID shape then checked semantically — non-suffixed identifiers are not seen.

  • `MeetingEditedDomainEvent.MeetingId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct MeetingId { Guid Value }`). — MeetingEditedDomainEvent.cs:12
  • `MeetingFeePaymentCreatedDomainEvent.MeetingFeeId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct MeetingFeeId { Guid Value }`). — MeetingFeePaymentCreatedDomainEvent.cs:17
  • `MeetingFeePaymentCreatedDomainEvent.MeetingFeePaymentId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct MeetingFeePaymentId { Guid Value }`). — MeetingFeePaymentCreatedDomainEvent.cs:19
  • `MeetingFeePaymentExpiredDomainEvent.MeetingFeePaymentId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct MeetingFeePaymentId { Guid Value }`). — MeetingFeePaymentExpiredDomainEvent.cs:13
  • `MeetingFeePaymentPaidDomainEvent.MeetingFeePaymentId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct MeetingFeePaymentId { Guid Value }`). — MeetingFeePaymentPaidDomainEvent.cs:13
  • `MeetingFeeCanceledDomainEvent.MeetingFeeId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct MeetingFeeId { Guid Value }`). — MeetingFeeCanceledDomainEvent.cs:13
  • `MeetingFeeCreatedDomainEvent.MeetingFeeId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct MeetingFeeId { Guid Value }`). — MeetingFeeCreatedDomainEvent.cs:23
  • `MeetingFeeCreatedDomainEvent.PayerId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct PayerId { Guid Value }`). — MeetingFeeCreatedDomainEvent.cs:25
  • `MeetingFeeCreatedDomainEvent.MeetingId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct MeetingId { Guid Value }`). — MeetingFeeCreatedDomainEvent.cs:27
  • `MeetingFeeExpiredDomainEvent.MeetingFeeId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct MeetingFeeId { Guid Value }`). — MeetingFeeExpiredDomainEvent.cs:13
  • `MeetingFeePaidDomainEvent.MeetingFeeId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct MeetingFeeId { Guid Value }`). — MeetingFeePaidDomainEvent.cs:13
  • `PayerCreatedDomainEvent.PayerId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct PayerId { Guid Value }`). — PayerCreatedDomainEvent.cs:7
  • `PriceListItemActivatedDomainEvent.PriceListItemId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct PriceListItemId { Guid Value }`). — PriceListItemActivatedDomainEvent.cs:12
  • `PriceListItemAttributesChangedDomainEvent.PriceListItemId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct PriceListItemId { Guid Value }`). — PriceListItemAttributesChangedDomainEvent.cs:17
  • `PriceListItemCreatedDomainEvent.PriceListItemId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct PriceListItemId { Guid Value }`). — PriceListItemCreatedDomainEvent.cs:25
  • `PriceListItemDeactivatedDomainEvent.PriceListItemId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct PriceListItemId { Guid Value }`). — PriceListItemDeactivatedDomainEvent.cs:12
  • `SubscriptionPaymentCreatedDomainEvent.SubscriptionPaymentId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct SubscriptionPaymentId { Guid Value }`). — SubscriptionPaymentCreatedDomainEvent.cs:25
  • `SubscriptionPaymentCreatedDomainEvent.PayerId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct PayerId { Guid Value }`). — SubscriptionPaymentCreatedDomainEvent.cs:27
  • `SubscriptionPaymentExpiredDomainEvent.SubscriptionPaymentId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct SubscriptionPaymentId { Guid Value }`). — SubscriptionPaymentExpiredDomainEvent.cs:13
  • `SubscriptionPaymentPaidDomainEvent.SubscriptionPaymentId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct SubscriptionPaymentId { Guid Value }`). — SubscriptionPaymentPaidDomainEvent.cs:13
  • `SubscriptionRenewalPaymentCreatedDomainEvent.SubscriptionRenewalPaymentId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct SubscriptionRenewalPaymentId { Guid Value }`). — SubscriptionRenewalPaymentCreatedDomainEvent.cs:27
  • `SubscriptionRenewalPaymentCreatedDomainEvent.PayerId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct PayerId { Guid Value }`). — SubscriptionRenewalPaymentCreatedDomainEvent.cs:29
  • `SubscriptionRenewalPaymentCreatedDomainEvent.SubscriptionId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct SubscriptionId { Guid Value }`). — SubscriptionRenewalPaymentCreatedDomainEvent.cs:31
  • `SubscriptionRenewalPaymentPaidDomainEvent.SubscriptionRenewalPaymentId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct SubscriptionRenewalPaymentId { Guid Value }`). — SubscriptionRenewalPaymentPaidDomainEvent.cs:15
  • `SubscriptionRenewalPaymentPaidDomainEvent.SubscriptionId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct SubscriptionId { Guid Value }`). — SubscriptionRenewalPaymentPaidDomainEvent.cs:17
  • `SubscriptionCreatedDomainEvent.PayerId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct PayerId { Guid Value }`). — SubscriptionCreatedDomainEvent.cs:25
  • `SubscriptionCreatedDomainEvent.SubscriptionPaymentId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct SubscriptionPaymentId { Guid Value }`). — SubscriptionCreatedDomainEvent.cs:27
  • `SubscriptionCreatedDomainEvent.SubscriptionId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct SubscriptionId { Guid Value }`). — SubscriptionCreatedDomainEvent.cs:29
  • `SubscriptionExpiredDomainEvent.SubscriptionId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct SubscriptionId { Guid Value }`). — SubscriptionExpiredDomainEvent.cs:15
  • `SubscriptionRenewedDomainEvent.SubscriptionId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct SubscriptionId { Guid Value }`). — SubscriptionRenewedDomainEvent.cs:21
  • `SubscriptionRenewedDomainEvent.PayerId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct PayerId { Guid Value }`). — SubscriptionRenewedDomainEvent.cs:25

What to do

  • Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.
DM3 · Integration-event coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether cross-context integration events stay loosely coupled — no producer-owned enums/domain types leaking to consumers. Shared-kernel/contracts types are allowed.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): integration-event properties scanned for producer-domain type/enum leaks versus primitives and shared-kernel types. Deterministic, hard fact.

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model6.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates/entities carry the behaviour that protects their invariants, rather than being data bags driven by external services.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entity method BODIES classified mutator-vs-query — only methods that mutate the entity's own declared state count as invariant-protecting behaviour, so a getter/passthrough doesn't rescue an anemic class. Deterministic, exhaustive over domain-layer entities.

Coverage: Population: entities by name/base convention; rich-vs-anemic judged by classifying each method body mutator-vs-query — logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.

  • `Member` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. (×2) — Member.cs:7, Member.cs:6
  • `User` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — User.cs:6

What to do

  • Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.
DM5 · Encapsulated state10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether entities protect their state (private/init-only setters) instead of exposing public setters that bypass invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): public setters on entities detected; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary7.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies (EF/Marten/HTTP/ASP.NET) — the clean-architecture dependency rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.

Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.

  • `MeetingGroupProposalEntityTypeConfiguration` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. — MeetingGroupProposalEntityTypeConfiguration.cs:8
  • `MeetingGroupProposalRepository` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. — MeetingGroupProposalRepository.cs:6
  • `MemberEntityTypeConfiguration` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. — MemberEntityTypeConfiguration.cs:7
  • `MemberRepository` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. — MemberRepository.cs:6

What to do

  • Invert domain→infrastructure dependencies: declare interfaces in the domain, implement them in infrastructure (Dependency Inversion).
DM8 · Value-object opportunities9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted — a low-weight suggestion, LLM-confirmed when configured.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): primitive parameter clusters recurring three or more times across signatures extracted, then confirmed by language model when configured. Advisory, low-weight.

  • The parameters [email, firstname, id, lastname, login, name] travel together across 3 signatures — that's a missing value object. Extracting them into one type (e.g. `Address`, `Money`, `Coordinate`) removes repetition, prevents argument-order mistakes, and gives the concept a home for its rules. — Member.cs:28

What to do

  • Extract recurring primitive parameter clusters into value objects so the concept (and its rules) lives in one place.
ED1 · Handler temporal coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether event handlers stay asynchronous (no blocking remote HTTP/gRPC calls awaited inside a handler).

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler bodies scanned for HTTP/gRPC invocations by resolved symbol type, not substring. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

ED2 · Event/command shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether commands have a single handler (one owner of the decision) and fan-out is modelled with events.

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): command-shaped messages identified by convention; handler count per command checked for the exactly-one rule. Deterministic, hard fact.

ED3 · Event naming9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether events are named in the past tense (a clarity nudge — low weight).

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): domain and integration events checked for past-tense naming (-ed/-en suffix or irregular set). Naming nudge, low-weight advisory.

  • `DomainEventBase` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — DomainEventBase.cs:3
  • `IDomainEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — IDomainEvent.cs:5
  • `DomainNotificationBase` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — DomainNotificationBase.cs:5
  • `IDomainEventNotification` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. (×2) — IDomainEventNotification.cs:5, IDomainEventNotification.cs:10

What to do

  • Name events in the past tense — they record facts that already happened.
ED4 · Outbox / dual-write7.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether state changes and message publishes are atomic (a transactional outbox) rather than a crash-unsafe dual write.

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler methods scanned for DB-save plus bus-publish without a transactional outbox reference. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

  • `ProcessOutboxCommandHandler.Handle` writes to the database AND publishes to the message bus in the same flow, with no outbox referenced in this path. These two writes aren't atomic — a crash between them either loses the message (DB committed, publish failed) or emits a phantom event (publish succeeded, DB rolled back). Use the transactional outbox pattern (e.g. MassTransit's EF/Marten outbox) so the message is committed in the same transaction as the state change and dispatched afterwards. — ProcessOutboxCommandHandler.cs:32

What to do

  • Adopt the transactional outbox pattern so DB writes and message publishes commit atomically — no lost or phantom events on a crash.
ED5 · Idempotency4.3 / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

Other · Readiness — Whether retry-prone mutations (command handlers + message/event consumers) are idempotent so an at-least-once redelivery or client retry doesn't double-apply the effect — heuristic at-risk detection confirmed by language model, advisory.

Method: Roslyn heuristic (any mutation, ungated): command handlers and message/event consumers that mutate persistent state without a visible idempotency guard (exists/dedup check, upsert, idempotency-key/inbox, conditional/versioned write, fixed-value set) flagged as at-risk; each at-risk candidate then confirmed or cleared by a language model as genuinely non-idempotent versus naturally-idempotent. Advisory without a model (heuristic-only, degraded), per-candidate judged with one.

Coverage: Population: retry-prone mutations — command handlers (CQRS write side) + message/event consumers (IConsumer/I*EventHandler) — that mutate persistent state; runs on any repo with mutations, not only event-driven ones. The at-risk subset (no obvious guard) is a HEURISTIC candidate set, each then LLM-JUDGED non-idempotent vs safe; a handler outside those conventions, or a guard the LLM can't confirm, is bounded by the sample. Degrades to heuristic-only when no model is configured.

  • `AddAdminUser.AddAdminUserCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — AddAdminUserCommandHandler.cs:17
  • `CreateUser.CreateUserCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — CreateUserCommandHandler.cs:15
  • `MeetingCommentingConfigurations.MeetingCreatedEventHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — MeetingCreatedEventHandler.cs:21
  • `AddMeetingComment.AddMeetingCommentCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — AddMeetingCommentCommandHandler.cs:33
  • `AddMeetingCommentLike.AddMeetingCommentLikeCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — AddMeetingCommentLikeCommandHandler.cs:30
  • `AddMeetingCommentReply.AddReplyToMeetingCommentCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — AddReplyToMeetingCommentCommandHandler.cs:28
  • `ProposeMeetingGroup.ProposeMeetingGroupCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — ProposeMeetingGroupCommandHandler.cs:21
  • `CreateNewMeetingGroup.CreateNewMeetingGroupCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — CreateNewMeetingGroupCommandHandler.cs:20
  • `CreateMeeting.CreateMeetingCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — CreateMeetingCommandHandler.cs:24
  • `CreateMember.CreateMemberCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) (×2) — CreateMemberCommandHandler.cs:15, CreateMemberCommandHandler.cs:15
  • `ChangeSubscriptionExpirationDateForMember.ChangeSubscriptionExpirationDateForMemberCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — ChangeSubscriptionExpirationDateForMemberCommandHandler.cs:15
  • `Outbox.ProcessOutboxCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (an event publish) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) (×5) — ProcessOutboxCommandHandler.cs:32, ProcessOutboxCommandHandler.cs:32, ProcessOutboxCommandHandler.cs:32, …
  • `AcceptMeetingGroupProposal.MeetingGroupProposalAcceptedNotificationHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (an event publish) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — MeetingGroupProposalAcceptedNotificationHandler.cs:16
  • `RequestMeetingGroupProposalVerification.RequestMeetingGroupProposalVerificationCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — RequestMeetingGroupProposalVerificationCommandHandler.cs:17
  • `RegisterNewUser.NewUserRegisteredPublishEventHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (an event publish) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — NewUserRegisteredPublishEventHandler.cs:16
  • `RegisterNewUser.RegisterNewUserCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — RegisterNewUserCommandHandler.cs:19

What to do

  • Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.

  • A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×16) — CommandsScheduler.cs:40, SerilogLogProvider.cs:55, SerilogLogProvider.cs:60, …
  • A placeholder string ("_changeMemberId") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. — MeetingEntityTypeConfiguration.cs:21
  • A placeholder string ("ChangeMemberId") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. — MeetingEntityTypeConfiguration.cs:21

What to do

  • Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs5.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

  • `SerilogLogProvider` has 3 unfinished members out of 4 — a scaffolded type that was never implemented. (×5) — SerilogLogProvider.cs:6, SerilogLogProvider.cs:6, SerilogLogProvider.cs:6, …
  • `OpenNestedContext` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×5) — SerilogLogProvider.cs:53, SerilogLogProvider.cs:53, SerilogLogProvider.cs:53, …
  • `OpenMappedContext` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×10) — SerilogLogProvider.cs:58, SerilogLogProvider.cs:63, SerilogLogProvider.cs:58, …
  • `Handle` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. — MemberCratedNotificationHandler.cs:7
  • `EnqueueAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — CommandsScheduler.cs:38
  • `When` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. — ProjectorBase.cs:7
  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×4) — Startup.cs:120, MeetingsContext.cs:48, EventsBusStartup.cs:19, …
  • `StartConsuming` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. — InMemoryEventBusClient.cs:31
  • A test is skipped/ignored — coverage that looks present but never runs. Re-enable it or delete it so the green run means something. — SubscriptionLifecycleTests.cs:21

What to do

  • Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
  • Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)8.0 / 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 a README to the 47 of 47 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation8.5 / 10Strong✓ 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.

What to do

  • Grow the ADR log (currently 17) — reach 20 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.
M3 · Folder & project structure8.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

  • Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.

What to do

  • Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
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.

P2 · Observability5.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: structured-logging frameworks (Serilog, NLog), OpenTelemetry, and health-check endpoint patterns. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • Only 9/14 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).

What to do

  • Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: CodeQL, Dependabot, secret-scanning, and BenchmarkDotNet presence in pipelines and projects. Exhaustive, deterministic.

What to do

  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

  • Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.

What to do

  • Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
  • Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether EF Core schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than the un-evolvable EnsureCreated().

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage. Exhaustive per project, deterministic.

S1 · Web-Security Posture6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order and crypto hygiene (presence, not runtime).

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. Deterministic.

  • `RequireHttpsMetadata = false` allows the OIDC discovery doc to be fetched over plain HTTP. Safe for loopback-only fetches (Aspire / on-host); risky for any other path. — IdentityConfiguration.cs:29
  • No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (−1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.)

What to do

  • Set RequireHttpsMetadata = true in prod (or pin MetadataAddress to a localhost URL the API can hit directly).
  • Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
  • Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
X1 · Async correctness6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.

  • Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Make the caller `async` and `await` instead. (×25) — QuartzStartup.cs:24, QuartzStartup.cs:28, QuartzStartup.cs:54, …

What to do

  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)
X2 · Cancellation propagation6.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether async methods accept a CancellationToken so work can be cancelled (adoption curve).

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

  • Only 159/338 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×25) — CorrelationMiddleware.cs:13, MeetingGroupProposalsController.cs:21, MeetingGroupProposalsController.cs:32, …

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.

X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. Deterministic.

X5 · Nullable reference types2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

  • 0/27 projects enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable>. NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

What to do

  • Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.

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
Code Health59%Adequate — gated by X5Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture87%StrongSolid.
Maturity76%Adequate — gated by D34Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness66%AdequateAcceptable, with room to improve.
Security75%StrongSolid.
Domain Modelling66%Adequate — gated by DM2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event-Driven90%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Not included — 41 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.
  • AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
  • C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
  • C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
  • D19 Documentation Quality — LLM dimension skipped
  • D21 Naming Consistency — LLM dimension skipped
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — LLM dimension skipped
  • D24 Comment Value — LLM dimension skipped
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D27 Navigability — Navigability unmeasured — symbol resolution incomplete
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — Not applicable
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — Not applicable
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
  • D39 IL Efficiency — IL metrics not applicable
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
  • DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): an event-store package (Marten/EventStore); 7 aggregate(s) with Apply/When folds
  • M4 Documentation accuracy — LLM not available — accuracy is the Tier-2 layer and needs a reachable model.
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

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 — 13 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×3
  • No assertions: Prepare src/Tests/SUT/TestCases/CleanDatabaseTestCase.cs:12 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: Prepare src/Tests/SUT/TestCases/CreateMeeting.cs:11 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: Prepare src/Tests/SUT/TestCases/OnlyAdminTestCase.cs:11 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×3
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: MeetingCommentsController.cs ↔ MeetingComment.cs src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Meetings/MeetingComments/MeetingCommentsController.cs — `src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Meetings/MeetingComments/MeetingCommentsController.cs` (context API) and `src/Modules/Meetings/Domain/MeetingComments/MeetingComment.cs` (context Meetings) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 55% of the time (6 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: PriceListItemsController.cs ↔ PriceListItem.cs src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Payments/PriceListItems/PriceListItemsController.cs — `src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Payments/PriceListItems/PriceListItemsController.cs` (context API) and `src/Modules/Payments/Domain/PriceListItems/PriceListItem.cs` (context Payments) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 50% of the time (6 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: PriceListItemsController.cs ↔ PriceListItemsProjector.cs src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Payments/PriceListItems/PriceListItemsController.cs — `src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Payments/PriceListItems/PriceListItemsController.cs` (context API) and `src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/GetPriceListItem/PriceListItemsProjector.cs` (context Payments) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 50% of the time (5 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×2
  • NoWarnInCsproj build/_build.csproj:7 — CS0649
  • NoWarnInCsproj build/_build.csproj:7 — CS0169
D28 · Secrets (history) · Secret · ×2
  • Secret: generic-api-key src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/appsettings.json:17 — matched rule 'generic-api-key'
  • Secret: generic-api-key src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/tempkey.rsa:1 — matched rule 'generic-api-key'
D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×2
  • High IaC: DS-0002 src/Database/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
  • High IaC: DS-0002 src/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Critical IaC · ×1
  • Critical IaC: DS-0031 src/Database/Dockerfile — Secrets passed via `build-args` or envs or copied secret files
Warning — 40 finding(s)
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×7
  • Change coupling: ActivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs ↔ DeactivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/ActivatePriceListItem/ActivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs — `src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/ActivatePriceListItem/ActivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs` and `src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/DeactivatePriceListItem/DeactivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs` change together 70% of the time (7 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: ActivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs ↔ ChangePriceListItemAttributesCommandHandler.cs src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/ActivatePriceListItem/ActivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs — `src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/ActivatePriceListItem/ActivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs` and `src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/ChangePriceListItemAttributes/ChangePriceListItemAttributesCommandHandler.cs` change together 60% of the time (6 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: ChangePriceListItemAttributesCommandHandler.cs ↔ DeactivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/ChangePriceListItemAttributes/ChangePriceListItemAttributesCommandHandler.cs — `src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/ChangePriceListItemAttributes/ChangePriceListItemAttributesCommandHandler.cs` and `src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/DeactivatePriceListItem/DeactivatePriceListItemCommandHandler.cs` change together 60% of the time (6 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: PaymentsPermissions.cs ↔ PriceListItemsController.cs src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Payments/PaymentsPermissions.cs — `src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Payments/PaymentsPermissions.cs` and `src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Payments/PriceListItems/PriceListItemsController.cs` change together 60% of the time (6 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: PriceListItemsProjector.cs ↔ PriceListItem.cs src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/GetPriceListItem/PriceListItemsProjector.cs — `src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/GetPriceListItem/PriceListItemsProjector.cs` and `src/Modules/Payments/Domain/PriceListItems/PriceListItem.cs` change together 60% of the time (6 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: PriceListItemsProjector.cs ↔ DomainEventTypeMappings.cs src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/GetPriceListItem/PriceListItemsProjector.cs — `src/Modules/Payments/Application/PriceListItems/GetPriceListItem/PriceListItemsProjector.cs` and `src/Modules/Payments/Infrastructure/AggregateStore/DomainEventTypeMappings.cs` change together 60% of the time (6 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: MeetingCommentsController.cs ↔ MeetingsPermissions.cs src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Meetings/MeetingComments/MeetingCommentsController.cs — `src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Meetings/MeetingComments/MeetingCommentsController.cs` and `src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Meetings/MeetingsPermissions.cs` change together 55% of the time (6 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×6
  • Off the main sequence: CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.IntegrationEvents — CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.IntegrationEvents: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.17, distance 0.83 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.IntegrationEvents — CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.IntegrationEvents: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.17, distance 0.83 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.IntegrationEvents — CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.IntegrationEvents: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.20, distance 0.80 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Infrastructure — CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Infrastructure: abstractness 0.04, instability 0.17, distance 0.80 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Infrastructure — CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Infrastructure: abstractness 0.02, instability 0.20, distance 0.78 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.Infrastructure — CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.Infrastructure: abstractness 0.02, instability 0.20, distance 0.78 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×6
  • Low cohesion: SerilogLogProvider (LCOM4 4) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/SerilogLogProvider.cs:6 — SerilogLogProvider's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: InMemoryEventBusClient (LCOM4 4) src/BuildingBlocks/Infrastructure/EventBus/InMemoryEventBusClient.cs:5 — InMemoryEventBusClient's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: SerilogLogProvider (LCOM4 4) src/Modules/Administration/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/SerilogLogProvider.cs:6 — SerilogLogProvider's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: SerilogLogProvider (LCOM4 4) src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/SerilogLogProvider.cs:6 — SerilogLogProvider's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: SerilogLogProvider (LCOM4 4) src/Modules/Payments/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/SerilogLogProvider.cs:6 — SerilogLogProvider's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: SerilogLogProvider (LCOM4 4) src/Modules/Registrations/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/SerilogLogProvider.cs:6 — SerilogLogProvider's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 4) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 4) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/LoggingCommandHandlerWithResultDecorator.cs:32 — src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/LoggingCommandHandlerWithResultDecorator.cs:32-50 | src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/LoggingCommandHandlerWithResultDecorator.cs:32-50 | src/Modules/Payments/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/LoggingCommandHandlerWithResultDecorator.cs:32-50 | src/Modules/Registrations/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/LoggingCommandHandlerWithResultDecorator.cs:32-50
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 4) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/Outbox/OutboxModule.cs:40 — src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/Outbox/OutboxModule.cs:40-58 | src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/Outbox/OutboxModule.cs:40-58 | src/Modules/Payments/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/Outbox/OutboxModule.cs:39-57 | src/Modules/Registrations/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/Outbox/OutboxModule.cs:40-58
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/Outbox/OutboxModule.cs:22 — src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/Outbox/OutboxModule.cs:22-33 | src/Modules/Payments/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/Outbox/OutboxModule.cs:21-32
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/Outbox/OutboxModule.cs:21 — src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/Outbox/OutboxModule.cs:21-32 | src/Modules/Registrations/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/Outbox/OutboxModule.cs:21-32
D17 · Explicit Debt · BarePragmaDisable · ×1
  • BarePragmaDisable src/Modules/Meetings/Domain/MeetingComments/MeetingComment.cs:71 — #pragma warning disable CS8618
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AuthorizationChecker.CheckAllEndpoints (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • AuthorizationChecker.CheckAllEndpoints (cognitive 16) src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Configuration/Authorization/AuthorizationChecker.cs:9 — AuthorizationChecker.CheckAllEndpoints has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type MeetingGroupProposalAcceptedIntegrationEvent (Administration → Meetings) · ×1
  • Cross-context type MeetingGroupProposalAcceptedIntegrationEvent (Administration → Meetings) — MeetingGroupProposalAcceptedIntegrationEvent (context Administration) is exposed in Meetings's public surface via MeetingGroupProposalAcceptedIntegrationEventHandler.Handle — couples the contexts.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (56 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (56 lines × 2) src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/QuartzStartup.cs:28 — src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/QuartzStartup.cs:28-83 | src/Modules/Registrations/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/QuartzStartup.cs:28-83
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (28 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (28 lines × 4) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Mediation/MediatorModule.cs:24 — src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Mediation/MediatorModule.cs:24-51 | src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/Mediation/MediatorModule.cs:24-51 | src/Modules/Payments/Infrastructure/Configuration/Mediation/MediatorModule.cs:24-51 | src/Modules/Registrations/Infrastructure/Configuration/Mediation/MediatorModule.cs:24-51
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (21 lines × 4) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/EventsBus/IntegrationEventGenericHandler.cs:17 — src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/EventsBus/IntegrationEventGenericHandler.cs:17-37 | src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/EventsBus/IntegrationEventGenericHandler.cs:17-37 | src/Modules/Payments/Infrastructure/Configuration/EventsBus/IntegrationEventGenericHandler.cs:17-37 | src/Modules/Registrations/Infrastructure/Configuration/EventsBus/IntegrationEventGenericHandler.cs:17-37
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 5) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 5) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/LoggingCommandHandlerDecorator.cs:30 — src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/LoggingCommandHandlerDecorator.cs:30-48 | src/Modules/Administration/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/LoggingCommandHandlerDecorator.cs:30-48 | src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/LoggingCommandHandlerDecorator.cs:30-48 | src/Modules/Payments/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/LoggingCommandHandlerDecorator.cs:30-48 | src/Modules/Registrations/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/LoggingCommandHandlerDecorator.cs:30-48
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/Authentication/Authenticate/PasswordManager.cs:30 — src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/Authentication/Authenticate/PasswordManager.cs:30-48 | src/Modules/Registrations/Application/UserRegistrations/RegisterNewUser/PasswordManager.cs:30-48
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/SerilogLogProvider.cs:19 — src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/SerilogLogProvider.cs:19-34 | src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/SerilogLogProvider.cs:19-34 | src/Modules/Payments/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/SerilogLogProvider.cs:19-34 | src/Modules/Registrations/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/SerilogLogProvider.cs:19-34
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/Authentication/Authenticate/PasswordManager.cs:9 — src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/Authentication/Authenticate/PasswordManager.cs:9-24 | src/Modules/Registrations/Application/UserRegistrations/RegisterNewUser/PasswordManager.cs:9-24
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/ProcessingModule.cs:19 — src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/ProcessingModule.cs:19-32 | src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/ProcessingModule.cs:23-36 | src/Modules/Registrations/Infrastructure/Configuration/Processing/ProcessingModule.cs:23-36
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/Authentication/Authenticate/PasswordManager.cs:62 — src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/Authentication/Authenticate/PasswordManager.cs:62-75 | src/Modules/Registrations/Application/UserRegistrations/RegisterNewUser/PasswordManager.cs:62-75
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Mediation/MediatorModule.cs:76 — src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Mediation/MediatorModule.cs:76-88 | src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/Mediation/MediatorModule.cs:76-88 | src/Modules/Payments/Infrastructure/Configuration/Mediation/MediatorModule.cs:76-88 | src/Modules/Registrations/Infrastructure/Configuration/Mediation/MediatorModule.cs:76-88
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/QuartzStartup.cs:18 — src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/QuartzStartup.cs:18-28 | src/Modules/Payments/Infrastructure/Configuration/Quartz/QuartzStartup.cs:24-34
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/UserAccessStartup.cs:58 — src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/UserAccessStartup.cs:58-65 | src/Modules/Registrations/Infrastructure/Configuration/RegistrationsStartup.cs:61-68
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Domain/Meetings/MeetingEntityTypeConfiguration.cs:55 — src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Domain/Meetings/MeetingEntityTypeConfiguration.cs:55-61 | src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Domain/Meetings/MeetingEntityTypeConfiguration.cs:84-90 | src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/Domain/Meetings/MeetingEntityTypeConfiguration.cs:96-102
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. Commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces (anywhere in the repo), or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
Recommendation — 23 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×4
  • Low IaC: DS-0005 src/Database/Dockerfile — ADD instead of COPY
  • Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Database/Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined
  • Low IaC: DS-0005 src/Dockerfile — ADD instead of COPY
  • Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined
D18 · Solution Shape · Shell project · ×2
  • Shell project: CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.IntegrationEvents src/Modules/UserAccess/IntegrationEvents/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.IntegrationEvents.csproj — `CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.IntegrationEvents` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: CompanyName.MyMeetings.Database.Build src/Database/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Database.Build/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Database.Build.csproj — `CompanyName.MyMeetings.Database.Build` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
D19 · Documentation Quality · LLM dimension skipped · ×1
  • LLM dimension skipped — This dimension requires a reachable LLM provider; configure/start one to evaluate it.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D21 · Naming Consistency · LLM dimension skipped · ×1
  • LLM dimension skipped — This dimension requires a reachable LLM provider; configure/start one to evaluate it.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · LLM dimension skipped · ×1
  • LLM dimension skipped — This dimension requires a reachable LLM provider; configure/start one to evaluate it.
D24 · Comment Value · LLM dimension skipped · ×1
  • LLM dimension skipped — This dimension requires a reachable LLM provider; configure/start one to evaluate it.
D25 · ADR Conformance · no ADRs to check · ×1
  • no ADRs to check — No ADRs found, so conformance can't be assessed.
D27 · Navigability · Navigability unmeasured · ×1
  • Navigability unmeasured — symbol resolution incomplete — 63 % of sampled invocations could not be resolved to a symbol (the workspace likely loaded without all references) — the indirection fractions would be computed over an unrepresentative slice, so navigability is reported as not measured rather than a misleading score.
D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
  • Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed — Some of these secrets are in git HISTORY: deleting the file does not remove them (the commit persists on every clone, fork and backup). The remediation is to ROTATE each historically-exposed credential and treat it as compromised — not to delete the file. Rewriting history is disruptive and unreliable across existing forks. (Working-tree-only secrets — no commit — can instead be removed from the file and moved to a secret store.)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 100 of 100 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 100 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release).
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
D39 · IL Efficiency · IL metrics not applicable · ×1
  • IL metrics not applicable — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
D7 · Architectural Integrity · No checkable ADRs to assess · ×1
  • No checkable ADRs to assess — No architecture decision records were found and the project graph is acyclic, so architectural integrity could not be assessed. Add ADRs (with `enforcement: analyzer|test`) to make the architecture's rules checkable.
Info — 63 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · Justified suppression · ×5
  • Justified suppression src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Configuration/Authorization/HasPermissionAuthorizationHandler.cs:43 — #pragma warning disable CS0162 // Unreachable code detected
  • Justified suppression src/Modules/Meetings/Domain/MeetingComments/MeetingComment.cs:30 — #pragma warning disable CS0414 // Field is assigned but its value is never used
  • Justified suppression src/Modules/Meetings/Domain/Meetings/MeetingAttendee.cs:36 — #pragma warning disable CS0414 // Field is assigned but its value is never used
  • Justified suppression src/Modules/UserAccess/Domain/Users/User.cs:16 — #pragma warning disable CS0414 // Field is assigned but its value is never used
  • Justified suppression src/Tests/IntegrationTests/CreateMeetingGroup/CreateMeetingGroupTests.cs:108 — empty catch in test code (best-effort teardown)
D14 · License Compliance · Licenses scanned · ×1
  • Licenses scanned — 5 packages scanned; 2 distinct SPDX licenses.
D18 · Solution Shape · Build did not complete in the analyzer · ×1
  • Build did not complete in the analyzer — `dotnet build` reported 1 error(s) but no C# compiler diagnostic — an SDK / target-framework / restore mismatch in the analyzer environment, not a code defect (common for an older codebase whose target framework the analyzer's SDK can't build). Solution Shape is scored on structure and is NOT capped; the C# semantic analysis loads independently and is unaffected.
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.API (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.API (Production) src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API.csproj — 57 .cs files, 1894 LoC (1612 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Application (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Application (Production) src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Application.csproj — 35 .cs files, 808 LoC (680 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Application (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Application (Production) src/Modules/Meetings/Application/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Application.csproj — 140 .cs files, 3496 LoC (2958 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Domain (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Domain (Production) src/Modules/Meetings/Domain/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Domain.csproj — 111 .cs files, 3120 LoC (2486 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Infrastructure (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Infrastructure (Production) src/Modules/Meetings/Infrastructure/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Infrastructure.csproj — 58 .cs files, 2255 LoC (1931 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.Domain (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.Domain (Production) src/BuildingBlocks/Domain/CompanyName.MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.Domain.csproj — 9 .cs files, 286 LoC (229 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.Infrastructure (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.Infrastructure (Production) src/BuildingBlocks/Infrastructure/CompanyName.MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.Infrastructure.csproj — 27 .cs files, 726 LoC (614 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.Domain (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.Domain (Production) src/Modules/Administration/Domain/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.Domain.csproj — 17 .cs files, 394 LoC (316 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.Application (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.Application (Production) src/Modules/Administration/Application/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.Application.csproj — 28 .cs files, 640 LoC (542 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.Infrastructure (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.Infrastructure (Production) src/Modules/Administration/Infrastructure/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.Infrastructure.csproj — 47 .cs files, 1802 LoC (1541 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.IntegrationEvents (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.IntegrationEvents (Production) src/Modules/Meetings/IntegrationEvents/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.IntegrationEvents.csproj — 3 .cs files, 87 LoC (72 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.IntegrationEvents (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.IntegrationEvents (Production) src/Modules/Administration/IntegrationEvents/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.IntegrationEvents.csproj — 1 .cs files, 19 LoC (16 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Infrastructure (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Infrastructure (Production) src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Infrastructure.csproj — 50 .cs files, 1962 LoC (1691 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Domain (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Domain (Production) src/Modules/UserAccess/Domain/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Domain.csproj — 5 .cs files, 147 LoC (123 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.IntegrationEvents (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.IntegrationEvents (Production) src/Modules/UserAccess/IntegrationEvents/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.IntegrationEvents.csproj — 0 .cs files, 0 LoC (0 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.Application (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.Application (Production) src/Modules/Payments/Application/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.Application.csproj — 97 .cs files, 2600 LoC (2220 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.Domain (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.Domain (Production) src/Modules/Payments/Domain/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.Domain.csproj — 68 .cs files, 2001 LoC (1629 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.Infrastructure (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.Infrastructure (Production) src/Modules/Payments/Infrastructure/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.Infrastructure.csproj — 51 .cs files, 2200 LoC (1875 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.IntegrationEvents (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.IntegrationEvents (Production) src/Modules/Payments/IntegrationEvents/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.IntegrationEvents.csproj — 2 .cs files, 44 LoC (38 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.Application (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.Application (Production) src/BuildingBlocks/Application/CompanyName.MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.Application.csproj — 12 .cs files, 204 LoC (168 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Domain.UnitTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Domain.UnitTests (Production) src/Modules/UserAccess/Tests/UnitTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.Domain.UnitTests.csproj — 2 .cs files, 80 LoC (69 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.Domain.UnitTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.Domain.UnitTests (Production) src/Modules/Payments/Tests/UnitTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.Domain.UnitTests.csproj — 10 .cs files, 712 LoC (539 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.Domain.UnitTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.Domain.UnitTests (Production) src/Modules/Administration/Tests/UnitTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.Domain.UnitTests.csproj — 4 .cs files, 246 LoC (214 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Domain.UnitTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Domain.UnitTests (Production) src/Modules/Meetings/Tests/UnitTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.Domain.UnitTests.csproj — 14 .cs files, 1975 LoC (1604 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.ArchTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.ArchTests (Production) src/Tests/ArchTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.ArchTests.csproj — 3 .cs files, 227 LoC (198 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.ArchTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.ArchTests (Production) src/Modules/Administration/Tests/ArchTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.ArchTests.csproj — 4 .cs files, 514 LoC (443 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.ArchTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.ArchTests (Production) src/Modules/Meetings/Tests/ArchTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.ArchTests.csproj — 4 .cs files, 514 LoC (443 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.ArchTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.ArchTests (Production) src/Modules/Payments/Tests/ArchTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.ArchTests.csproj — 4 .cs files, 520 LoC (448 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.ArchTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.ArchTests (Production) src/Modules/UserAccess/Tests/ArchTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.ArchTests.csproj — 4 .cs files, 514 LoC (443 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyNames.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.IntegrationTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyNames.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.IntegrationTests (Production) src/Modules/UserAccess/Tests/IntegrationTests/CompanyNames.MyMeetings.Modules.UserAccess.IntegrationTests.csproj — 5 .cs files, 195 LoC (164 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.IntegrationTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.IntegrationTests (Production) src/Modules/Payments/Tests/IntegrationTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Payments.IntegrationTests.csproj — 13 .cs files, 851 LoC (705 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.IntegrationTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.IntegrationTests (Production) src/Modules/Administration/Tests/IntegrationTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Administration.IntegrationTests.csproj — 8 .cs files, 314 LoC (266 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.IntegrationTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.IntegrationTests (Production) src/Tests/IntegrationTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.IntegrationTests.csproj — 4 .cs files, 280 LoC (233 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.IntegrationTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.IntegrationTests (Production) src/Modules/Meetings/Tests/IntegrationTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Meetings.IntegrationTests.csproj — 24 .cs files, 1067 LoC (869 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.Application.UnitTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.Application.UnitTests (Production) src/BuildingBlocks/Tests/Application.UnitTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.Application.UnitTests.csproj — 2 .cs files, 39 LoC (33 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.IntegrationTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.IntegrationTests (Production) src/BuildingBlocks/Tests/IntegrationTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.BuildingBlocks.IntegrationTests.csproj — 6 .cs files, 135 LoC (113 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DatabaseMigrator (Production) · ×1
  • DatabaseMigrator (Production) src/Database/DatabaseMigrator/DatabaseMigrator.csproj — 2 .cs files, 99 LoC (76 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · _build (Production) · ×1
  • _build (Production) build/_build.csproj — 6 .cs files, 445 LoC (363 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Database.Build (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Database.Build (Production) src/Database/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Database.Build/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Database.Build.csproj — 0 .cs files, 0 LoC (0 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.SUT (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.SUT (Production) src/Tests/SUT/CompanyName.MyMeetings.SUT.csproj — 18 .cs files, 1028 LoC (870 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.Application (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.Application (Production) src/Modules/Registrations/Application/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.Application.csproj — 30 .cs files, 672 LoC (572 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.Domain (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.Domain (Production) src/Modules/Registrations/Domain/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.Domain.csproj — 13 .cs files, 310 LoC (248 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.Infrastructure (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.Infrastructure (Production) src/Modules/Registrations/Infrastructure/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.Infrastructure.csproj — 49 .cs files, 1841 LoC (1588 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.ArchTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.ArchTests (Production) src/Modules/Registrations/Tests/ArchTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.ArchTests.csproj — 4 .cs files, 515 LoC (444 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyNames.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.IntegrationTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyNames.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.IntegrationTests (Production) src/Modules/Registrations/Tests/IntegrationTests/CompanyNames.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.IntegrationTests.csproj — 8 .cs files, 270 LoC (229 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.Domain.UnitTests (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.Domain.UnitTests (Production) src/Modules/Registrations/Tests/UnitTests/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.Domain.UnitTests.csproj — 3 .cs files, 280 LoC (194 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.IntegrationEvents (Production) · ×1
  • CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.IntegrationEvents (Production) src/Modules/Registrations/IntegrationEvents/CompanyName.MyMeetings.Modules.Registrations.IntegrationEvents.csproj — 2 .cs files, 36 LoC (27 significant)
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Administration · ×1
  • Administration: 1 contract type(s) expose producer-owned ids/enums — In Administration, 1 contract type(s) (IAdministrationModule) expose strong-typed ids/value objects (ICommand); a serialized contract could expose the underlying primitive instead. Advisory — a deliberate strong-ID style is fine.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Meetings · ×1
  • Meetings: 2 contract type(s) expose producer-owned ids/enums — In Meetings, 2 contract type(s) (IMeetingsModule, NewMeetingGroupMemberJoinedDomainEvent) expose strong-typed ids/value objects (ICommand, MeetingGroupMemberRole); a serialized contract could expose the underlying primitive instead. Advisory — a deliberate strong-ID style is fine.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Payments · ×1
  • Payments: 1 contract type(s) expose producer-owned ids/enums — In Payments, 1 contract type(s) (IPaymentsModule) expose strong-typed ids/value objects (ICommand); a serialized contract could expose the underlying primitive instead. Advisory — a deliberate strong-ID style is fine.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Registrations · ×1
  • Registrations: 1 contract type(s) expose producer-owned ids/enums — In Registrations, 1 contract type(s) (IRegistrationsModule) expose strong-typed ids/value objects (ICommand); a serialized contract could expose the underlying primitive instead. Advisory — a deliberate strong-ID style is fine.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · UserAccess · ×1
  • UserAccess: 1 contract type(s) expose producer-owned ids/enums — In UserAccess, 1 contract type(s) (IUserAccessModule) expose strong-typed ids/value objects (ICommand); a serialized contract could expose the underlying primitive instead. Advisory — a deliberate strong-ID style is fine.
D9 · Test Distribution · Unit tests · ×1
  • Unit tests — 239 unit test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · Integration tests · ×1
  • Integration tests — 38 integration test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · BDD tests · ×1
  • BDD tests — 0 BDD test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · E2E tests · ×1
  • E2E tests — 0 end-to-end test method(s).

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)gitleaksgitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .2artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrepsemgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnetdotnet: not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution0
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivytrivy config --format json --quiet .7artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrepsemgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivytrivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenanceprovenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release).0
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosuredisclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scannerosv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.0

Run 019f081b-7e32-7cd4-a91e-02a6d66ffce4 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 80 field(s) across 3 categories, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.

Name — 38 field(s)
  • RegisterNewUserRequest.FirstName src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/UserAccess/RegisterNewUserRequest.cs:11
  • RegisterNewUserRequest.LastName src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/UserAccess/RegisterNewUserRequest.cs:13
  • CreateMemberCommand.FirstName src/Modules/Administration/Application/Members/CreateMember/CreateMemberCommand.cs:33
  • CreateMemberCommand.LastName src/Modules/Administration/Application/Members/CreateMember/CreateMemberCommand.cs:35
  • MemberDto.FirstName src/Modules/Administration/Application/Members/GetMember/MemberDto.cs:11
  • MemberDto.LastName src/Modules/Administration/Application/Members/GetMember/MemberDto.cs:13
  • Member._firstName src/Modules/Administration/Domain/Members/Member.cs:14
  • Member._lastName src/Modules/Administration/Domain/Members/Member.cs:16
  • MeetingAttendeeDto.FirstName src/Modules/Meetings/Application/Meetings/GetMeetingAttendees/MeetingAttendeeDto.cs:5
  • MeetingAttendeeDto.LastName src/Modules/Meetings/Application/Meetings/GetMeetingAttendees/MeetingAttendeeDto.cs:7
  • CreateMemberCommand.FirstName src/Modules/Meetings/Application/Members/CreateMember/CreateMemberCommand.cs:33
  • CreateMemberCommand.LastName src/Modules/Meetings/Application/Members/CreateMember/CreateMemberCommand.cs:35
  • Member._firstName src/Modules/Meetings/Domain/Members/Member.cs:15
  • Member._lastName src/Modules/Meetings/Domain/Members/Member.cs:17
  • CreatePayerCommand.FirstName src/Modules/Payments/Application/Payers/CreatePayer/CreatePayerCommand.cs:14
  • CreatePayerCommand.LastName src/Modules/Payments/Application/Payers/CreatePayer/CreatePayerCommand.cs:16
  • PayerDto.FirstName src/Modules/Payments/Application/Payers/GetPayer/PayerDto.cs:11
  • PayerDto.LastName src/Modules/Payments/Application/Payers/GetPayer/PayerDto.cs:13
  • PayerCreatedDomainEvent.FirstName src/Modules/Payments/Domain/Payers/Events/PayerCreatedDomainEvent.cs:11
  • PayerCreatedDomainEvent.LastName src/Modules/Payments/Domain/Payers/Events/PayerCreatedDomainEvent.cs:13
  • Payer._firstName src/Modules/Payments/Domain/Payers/Payer.cs:18
  • Payer._lastName src/Modules/Payments/Domain/Payers/Payer.cs:20
  • UserRegistrationDto.FirstName src/Modules/Registrations/Application/UserRegistrations/GetUserRegistration/UserRegistrationDto.cs:11
  • UserRegistrationDto.LastName src/Modules/Registrations/Application/UserRegistrations/GetUserRegistration/UserRegistrationDto.cs:13
  • RegisterNewUserCommand.FirstName src/Modules/Registrations/Application/UserRegistrations/RegisterNewUser/RegisterNewUserCommand.cs:29
  • RegisterNewUserCommand.LastName src/Modules/Registrations/Application/UserRegistrations/RegisterNewUser/RegisterNewUserCommand.cs:31
  • NewUserRegisteredDomainEvent.FirstName src/Modules/Registrations/Domain/UserRegistrations/Events/NewUserRegisteredDomainEvent.cs:13
  • NewUserRegisteredDomainEvent.LastName src/Modules/Registrations/Domain/UserRegistrations/Events/NewUserRegisteredDomainEvent.cs:15
  • UserRegistration._firstName src/Modules/Registrations/Domain/UserRegistrations/UserRegistration.cs:17
  • UserRegistration._lastName src/Modules/Registrations/Domain/UserRegistrations/UserRegistration.cs:19
  • NewUserRegisteredIntegrationEvent.FirstName src/Modules/Registrations/IntegrationEvents/NewUserRegisteredIntegrationEvent.cs:13
  • NewUserRegisteredIntegrationEvent.LastName src/Modules/Registrations/IntegrationEvents/NewUserRegisteredIntegrationEvent.cs:15
  • AddAdminUserCommand.FirstName src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/Users/AddAdminUser/AddAdminUserCommand.cs:25
  • AddAdminUserCommand.LastName src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/Users/AddAdminUser/AddAdminUserCommand.cs:27
  • CreateUserCommand.FirstName src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/Users/CreateUser/CreateUserCommand.cs:29
  • CreateUserCommand.LastName src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/Users/CreateUser/CreateUserCommand.cs:31
  • User._firstName src/Modules/UserAccess/Domain/Users/User.cs:20
  • User._lastName src/Modules/UserAccess/Domain/Users/User.cs:22
Email — 34 field(s)
  • RegisterNewUserRequest.Email src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/UserAccess/RegisterNewUserRequest.cs:9
  • EmailsConfiguration.FromEmail src/BuildingBlocks/Infrastructure/Emails/EmailsConfiguration.cs:10
  • CreateMemberCommand.Email src/Modules/Administration/Application/Members/CreateMember/CreateMemberCommand.cs:31
  • MemberDto.Email src/Modules/Administration/Application/Members/GetMember/MemberDto.cs:9
  • Member._email src/Modules/Administration/Domain/Members/Member.cs:12
  • SendMeetingGroupCreatedEmailCommandHandler._emailSender src/Modules/Meetings/Application/MeetingGroups/SendMeetingGroupCreatedEmail/SendMeetingGroupCreatedEmailCommandHandler.cs:13
  • SendMeetingAttendeeAddedEmailCommandHandler._emailSender src/Modules/Meetings/Application/Meetings/SendMeetingAttendeeAddedEmail/SendMeetingAttendeeAddedEmailCommandHandler.cs:11
  • CreateMemberCommand.Email src/Modules/Meetings/Application/Members/CreateMember/CreateMemberCommand.cs:31
  • MemberDto.Email src/Modules/Meetings/Application/Members/MemberDto.cs:9
  • Member._email src/Modules/Meetings/Domain/Members/Member.cs:13
  • CreatePayerCommand.Email src/Modules/Payments/Application/Payers/CreatePayer/CreatePayerCommand.cs:12
  • PayerDto.Email src/Modules/Payments/Application/Payers/GetPayer/PayerDto.cs:9
  • SendSubscriptionCreationConfirmationEmailCommand.Email src/Modules/Payments/Application/Subscriptions/SendSubscriptionCreationConfirmationEmail/SendSubscriptionCreationConfirmationEmailCommand.cs:11
  • SendSubscriptionCreationConfirmationEmailCommandHandler._emailSender src/Modules/Payments/Application/Subscriptions/SendSubscriptionCreationConfirmationEmail/SendSubscriptionCreationConfirmationEmailCommandHandler.cs:8
  • SendSubscriptionRenewalConfirmationEmailCommand.Email src/Modules/Payments/Application/Subscriptions/SendSubscriptionRenewalConfirmationEmail/SendSubscriptionRenewalConfirmationEmailCommand.cs:11
  • SendSubscriptionRenewalConfirmationEmailCommandHandler._emailSender src/Modules/Payments/Application/Subscriptions/SendSubscriptionRenewalConfirmationEmail/SendSubscriptionRenewalConfirmationEmailCommandHandler.cs:8
  • PayerCreatedDomainEvent.Email src/Modules/Payments/Domain/Payers/Events/PayerCreatedDomainEvent.cs:17
  • Payer._email src/Modules/Payments/Domain/Payers/Payer.cs:16
  • CustomClaimTypes.Email src/Modules/Registrations/Application/Contracts/CustomClaimTypes.cs:6
  • UserRegistrationDto.Email src/Modules/Registrations/Application/UserRegistrations/GetUserRegistration/UserRegistrationDto.cs:9
  • RegisterNewUserCommand.Email src/Modules/Registrations/Application/UserRegistrations/RegisterNewUser/RegisterNewUserCommand.cs:27
  • SendUserRegistrationConfirmationEmailCommand.Email src/Modules/Registrations/Application/UserRegistrations/SendUserRegistrationConfirmationEmail/SendUserRegistrationConfirmationEmailCommand.cs:24
  • SendUserRegistrationConfirmationEmailCommandHandler._emailSender src/Modules/Registrations/Application/UserRegistrations/SendUserRegistrationConfirmationEmail/SendUserRegistrationConfirmationEmailCommandHandler.cs:8
  • NewUserRegisteredDomainEvent.Email src/Modules/Registrations/Domain/UserRegistrations/Events/NewUserRegisteredDomainEvent.cs:11
  • UserRegistration._email src/Modules/Registrations/Domain/UserRegistrations/UserRegistration.cs:15
  • EmailModule._emailSender src/Modules/Registrations/Infrastructure/Configuration/Email/EmailModule.cs:9
  • NewUserRegisteredIntegrationEvent.Email src/Modules/Registrations/IntegrationEvents/NewUserRegisteredIntegrationEvent.cs:11
  • UserDto.Email src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/Authentication/Authenticate/UserDto.cs:15
  • CustomClaimTypes.Email src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/Contracts/CustomClaimTypes.cs:6
  • AddAdminUserCommand.Email src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/Users/AddAdminUser/AddAdminUserCommand.cs:31
  • CreateUserCommand.Email src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/Users/CreateUser/CreateUserCommand.cs:27
  • UserDto.Email src/Modules/UserAccess/Application/Users/GetUser/UserDto.cs:13
  • User._email src/Modules/UserAccess/Domain/Users/User.cs:14
  • EmailModule._emailSender src/Modules/UserAccess/Infrastructure/Configuration/Email/EmailModule.cs:9
Address — 8 field(s)
  • ChangeMeetingMainAttributesRequest.MeetingLocationPostalCode src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Meetings/Meetings/ChangeMeetingMainAttributesRequest.cs:19
  • CreateMeetingRequest.MeetingLocationPostalCode src/API/CompanyName.MyMeetings.API/Modules/Meetings/Meetings/CreateMeetingRequest.cs:19
  • ChangeMeetingMainAttributesCommand.MeetingLocationPostalCode src/Modules/Meetings/Application/Meetings/ChangeMeetingMainAttributes/ChangeMeetingMainAttributesCommand.cs:55
  • CreateMeetingCommand.MeetingLocationPostalCode src/Modules/Meetings/Application/Meetings/CreateMeeting/CreateMeetingCommand.cs:57
  • MemberMeetingDto.LocationPostalCode src/Modules/Meetings/Application/Meetings/GetAuthenticatedMemberMeetings/MemberMeetingDto.cs:13
  • MeetingDetailsDto.LocationPostalCode src/Modules/Meetings/Application/Meetings/GetMeetingDetails/MeetingDetailsDto.cs:21
  • MeetingDto.LocationPostalCode src/Modules/Meetings/Application/Meetings/MeetingDto.cs:15
  • MeetingLocation.PostalCode src/Modules/Meetings/Domain/Meetings/MeetingLocation.cs:24

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