Executive summary
Read through the Template lens: this is a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. The ship-it and operate-it dimensions (CI/CD, observability, ADRs, architecture docs, deployment security) are N/A, and the colour bands on what remains are relaxed to what an example needs. Code correctness stays near-strict; the score is absolute and comparable across repos.
kgrzybek/sample-dotnet-core-cqrs-api is in good overall health (64%), but at least one category below sits in Adequate-or-worse territory — most items are improvements, and the weakest category contains work to schedule, not shelve.
It is strongest in Event-Driven (100%) — its messaging keeps components properly decoupled. Architecture (86%) 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 Security (59%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Code Health (62%) is the next concern — changes there are slower and more error-prone.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: security response headers (Content-Security-Policy (Web-Security Posture); 11 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities (Dependency Vulnerabilities); Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) (Async correctness).
For scale: Small (~4,048 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Event-Driven foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
62%
Adequate · gated by X5
Architecture
86% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
68%
Adequate · gated by D34
Readiness
75% ★
Exemplary
Security
59%
Adequate · gated by D30
Domain Modelling
76%
Strong
Event-Driven
100% ★
Exemplary
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.
Security 59% · 46% weightCode Health 62% · 25% weightMaturity 68% · 14% weightReadiness 75% · 8% weightDomain Modelling 76% · 4% weightArchitecture 86% · 2% weightEvent-Driven 100% · 1% weight
Raise Security 59 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 64 → ~67.
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 8%Plumbing 80%Tests 12%
New since the last scan (5+)
- D30 · High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 1.0.5
- D30 · High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 1.0.5
- DM6 · Domain depends on infrastructure: CustomerEntityTypeConfiguration src/SampleProject.Infrastructure/Domain/Customers/CustomerEntityTypeConfiguration.cs
- DM6 · Domain depends on infrastructure: PaymentEntityTypeConfiguration src/SampleProject.Infrastructure/Domain/Payments/PaymentEntityTypeConfiguration.cs
- DM6 · Domain depends on infrastructure: ProductEntityTypeConfiguration src/SampleProject.Infrastructure/Domain/Products/ProductEntityTypeConfiguration.cs
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €2,000–€9,900
| Cost to rebuild | €2,000–€9,900 |
| Domain complexity | Very high |
| Quality factor | 0.9× (at 64% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 58% boilerplate · 33% straight-line · 9% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€6,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 59% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 4 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with SampleProject.API.csproj (4).
2
Resolve the 2 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with buildPipeline.yml (2).
3
Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 59%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: 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. The rest can wait behind it.
Architecture — module dependency graph
Architecture — module dependency matrix
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
10.0
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
10.0
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
10.0
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
8.7
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
10.0
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
8.7
X2 · Repo
Cancellation propagation
8.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
The Bad
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
8.7
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
10.0
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D27 · .NET / C#
Navigability
9.2
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
10.0
AX1 · Repo
Captive dependencies
10.0
AX2 · Repo
Stateful singletons
10.0
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX4 · Repo
Dependency direction
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX6 · Repo
Interface segregation
10.0
AX8 · Repo
Test isolation
10.0
AX9 · Repo
CQS / query purity
10.0
The Bad
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
D9 · .NET / C#
Test Distribution
10.0
D10 · .NET / C#
Test Quality
10.0
D12 · .NET / C#
Dependency Hygiene
10.0
D13 · .NET / C#
Secret Scanning
10.0
D14 · .NET / C#
License Compliance
10.0
ED5 · Repo
Idempotency
7.7
P1 · Repo
CI/CD gates
10.0
P2 · Repo
Observability
5.5
P8 · Repo
Schema migrations
6.0
At a glance — Security
At a glance — Domain Modelling
The Good
At a glance — Event-Driven
The Good
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 15 | High / Critical |
| A03:2021 — Injection | 4 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, strengthen the web security posture by implementing essential response headers to ensure defense in depth. Next, address the eleven high-severity dependency vulnerabilities to reduce external risk. Then, eliminate potential deadlocks by resolving the four sync-over-async issues. After that, enable nullable reference types across all projects and resolve the resulting warnings. Finally, resolve the four explicit debt findings in the project files to improve code clarity.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 4 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with SampleProject.API.csproj (4). | +2.7 pts | Low | Explicit Debt |
| Resolve the 2 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with buildPipeline.yml (2). | +2.3 pts | Low | Static Analysis (SAST) |
| Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. | +2.3 pts | Low | Dependency Vulnerabilities |
| 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. | +4.5 pts | Medium | Web-Security Posture |
| Resolve the 2 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with CustomersController.cs, CustomerOrdersController.cs. | +2.1 pts | Low | Static Analysis (SAST) |
| Resolve the 3 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. | +2.0 pts | Low | Dependency Vulnerabilities |
| Resolve the 11 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. | +3.9 pts | Medium | Dependency Vulnerabilities |
| Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. | +1.8 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| src/SampleProject.API/SampleProject.API.csproj | 5.5 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj |
| .github/workflows/buildPipeline.yml | 5.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| src/SampleProject.API/Customers/CustomersController.cs | 7.9 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: missing-or-broken-authorization |
| src/SampleProject.API/Orders/CustomerOrdersController.cs | 7.9 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: missing-or-broken-authorization |
| README.md | 9.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: The README describes the project but gives no instructions on how to run the application or integration tests. |
| src/SampleProject.Application/Customers/IntegrationHandlers/CustomerRegisteredNotificationHandler.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | Comment Value: misleading comment |
| src/SampleProject.Domain/Payments/Payment.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | Comment Value: misleading comment |
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. 55 of 58 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 58 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D34D35AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8AX9DM1DM4DM5DM6DM8ED1ED2ED3ED4ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P8S1X1X2X3X4X5
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 15 of 38 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
A clean run — every tool resolved and ran, and every applicable dimension was measured at full confidence. No scanner was unavailable, no analysis timed out or crashed, and nothing fell back to a degraded estimate.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- 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.
- 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.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- 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.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
6 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Off the main sequence: SampleProject.Domain
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 12 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
12 test methods: 10 unit, 2 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, 2 mock references across 12 tests.
Mock framework: NSubstitute
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 22 packages use a banned license.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
4 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 4048 LoC (0.7/KLoC) → score 8.7.
NoWarnInCsproj src/SampleProject.API/SampleProject.API.csproj:12
What to do
- Resolve the 4 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with SampleProject.API.csproj (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
- Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
6 projects, 174 source files, 4608 hand-written lines of code (4048 production / 560 test), 10 inter-project edges.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The single README is a decent description of the project (C# .NET Core REST API CQRS with raw SQL and DDD using Clean Architecture) plus CI status, a brief give-a-star note, and an outline covering architecture, CQRS/read model/write model, domain, validation, caching, integration, related articles. However it is clipped mid-sentence inside the 'Domain' section ("## Validation") and ends with the clip marker "[...] Domain Model Validation [...] [Domain Model Validation](http://www.kamilgrzybek.com/design..."
The README describes the project but gives no instructions on how to run the application or integration tests.README.md
XML-doc coverage: SampleProject.Infrastructure src/SampleProject.Infrastructure/SampleProject.Infrastructure.csproj
What to do
- Resolve the 1 The README describes the project but gives no instructions on how to run… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
4 valuable / 0 redundant across 18 sampled comments; 2 shown with locations.
misleading comment src/SampleProject.Application/Customers/IntegrationHandlers/CustomerRegisteredNotificationHandler.cs:21
What to do
- Resolve the 2 misleading comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with CustomerRegisteredNotificationHandler.cs, Payment.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 6 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
94 % of calls cross a namespace and 16 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
4 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 2 medium, 0 low.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/buildPipeline.yml:15
Medium: missing-or-broken-authorization src/SampleProject.API/Customers/CustomersController.cs:10
What to do
- Resolve the 2 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with buildPipeline.yml (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
- Resolve the 2 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with CustomersController.cs, CustomerOrdersController.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
15 vulnerable package(s): 1 critical, 11 high, 3 medium, 0 low.
High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 12.0.3
Critical CVE: System.Text.Encodings.Web 4.5.0
Medium CVE: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 1.0.19269.1
What to do
- Resolve the 11 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 3 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
14 of 14 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/SampleProject.Infrastructure/ApplicationStartup.cs.
Further orphaned files (smaller)
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX1 · Captive dependencies
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX10 · Code composition
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX2 · Stateful singletons
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX9 · CQS / query purity
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM1 · Aggregate boundaries
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM4 · Rich vs anemic model
- `Product` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Product.cs:9
What to do
- Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM5 · Encapsulated state
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
- `UnitOfWork` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. — UnitOfWork.cs:9
- `CustomerEntityTypeConfiguration` (domain layer) references `Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Metadata.Builders` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/web). — CustomerEntityTypeConfiguration.cs:13
- `CustomerRepository` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. — CustomerRepository.cs:11
- `PaymentEntityTypeConfiguration` (domain layer) references `Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Metadata.Builders` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/web). — PaymentEntityTypeConfiguration.cs:11
- `PaymentRepository` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. — PaymentRepository.cs:9
- `ProductEntityTypeConfiguration` (domain layer) references `Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Metadata.Builders` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/web). — ProductEntityTypeConfiguration.cs:8
- `ProductRepository` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. — ProductRepository.cs:12
- `CustomerUniquenessChecker` (domain layer) uses `SqlConnection` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. — CustomerUniquenessChecker.cs:7
What to do
- Invert domain→infrastructure dependencies: declare interfaces in the domain, implement them in infrastructure (Dependency Inversion).
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM8 · Value-object opportunities
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED1 · Handler temporal coupling
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED2 · Event/command shape
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED3 · Event naming
- `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: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:8
What to do
- Name events in the past tense — they record facts that already happened.
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED4 · Outbox / dual-write
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED5 · Idempotency
- `PlaceCustomerOrder.OrderPlacedDomainEventHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — OrderPlacedDomainEventHandler.cs:18
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- `SendEmailAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — EmailSender.cs:8
What to do
- Remove the dead code that still moves this score: delete dead if(false) / #if false branches and either do the real async work or drop the async keyword from fake-async methods.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a README to the 6 of 6 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
- Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- Only 2/4 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 4, 1 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.
What to do
- Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P8 · Schema migrations
- EF Core is used but neither migrations nor EnsureCreated were detected — confirm how the production schema is created and evolved.
What to do
- Adopt a versioned schema-migration mechanism (with EF Core: dotnet ef migrations add + Migrate() on startup) as the explicit, versioned schema strategy — no migration mechanism was detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
S1 · Web-Security Posture
- No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
- No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)
What to do
- Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
- Enforce HTTPS at the app layer (UseHttpsRedirection / UseHsts) — only skip this if a reverse proxy demonstrably terminates TLS.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
- Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process. (×4) — ApplicationStartup.cs:105, ApplicationStartup.cs:130, ApplicationStartup.cs:140, …
What to do
- Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)
Do you agree with this assessment?
X2 · Cancellation propagation
- Only 20/30 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
- No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×10) — CommandsExecutor.cs:11, CommandsExecutor.cs:20, QueriesExecutor.cs:11, …
What to do
- Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
X5 · Nullable reference types
- 0/1 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). 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 `!`.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 62% | Adequate — gated by X5 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 86% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 68% | Adequate — gated by D34 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 75% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Security | 59% | Adequate — gated by D30 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Domain Modelling | 76% | Strong | Solid. |
| Event-Driven | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
Not included — 49 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- C1 Data Protection — This is a dotnet-new template — at-rest encryption and key-vaulting are deferred to the application you build from it. Add ASP.NET Data Protection / column encryption + a key vault for your real data store when you productionise.
- C2 Access Controls — This is a dotnet-new template — authorization is deferred to the application you build from it. Add [Authorize]/policies (or imperative guards) when you wire up real users; until then there are no real endpoints to protect.
- 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.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test runner surfaced no tests
- D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 4048 LoC the codebase is small despite six projects and no boundaries declared, so explicit bounded-context boundaries are not needed.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Data compliance (PII/GDPR) was not assessed in this scan — no ruleset is currently available for it. This says nothing about how this repository handles personal data, in either direction.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — 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 published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
- DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no id-bearing domain types detected — strongly-typed-id adoption not assessable
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
- DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
- P3 Security & performance tooling — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarks are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- 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 — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance 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 — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 18 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 12.0.3
- High CVE: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 1.0.19269.1
- High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 1.0.5
- High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 1.0.5
- High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.Jit 1.0.7
- High CVE: System.Data.SqlClient 4.5.1
- High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.1.2
- High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.X509Certificates 4.1.0
- High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http 2.1.1
- High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 9.0.1
D17 · Explicit Debt
- NoWarnInCsproj src/SampleProject.API/SampleProject.API.csproj:12
- NoWarnInCsproj src/SampleProject.API/SampleProject.API.csproj:12
- NoWarnInCsproj src/SampleProject.API/SampleProject.API.csproj:12
- NoWarnInCsproj src/SampleProject.API/SampleProject.API.csproj:12
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/buildPipeline.yml:15
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/buildPipeline.yml:17
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Critical CVE: System.Text.Encodings.Web 4.5.0
Warning — 8 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 1.0.19269.1
- Medium CVE: System.Data.SqlClient 4.5.1
- Medium CVE: Swashbuckle.AspNetCore.SwaggerUI 5.0.0-rc4
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- Medium: missing-or-broken-authorization src/SampleProject.API/Customers/CustomersController.cs:10
- Medium: missing-or-broken-authorization src/SampleProject.API/Orders/CustomerOrdersController.cs:15
D16 · Bus Factor
- dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
D5 · Coupling
- Off the main sequence: SampleProject.Domain
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
Recommendation — 5 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value
- misleading comment src/SampleProject.Application/Customers/IntegrationHandlers/CustomerRegisteredNotificationHandler.cs:21
- misleading comment src/SampleProject.Domain/Payments/Payment.cs:21
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test runner surfaced no tests
D19 · Documentation Quality
- The README describes the project but gives no instructions on how to run the application or integration tests. README.md
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Further orphaned files (smaller)
Info — 7 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality
- XML-doc coverage: SampleProject.Infrastructure src/SampleProject.Infrastructure/SampleProject.Infrastructure.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: SampleProject.Domain src/SampleProject.Domain/SampleProject.Domain.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: SampleProject.API src/SampleProject.API/SampleProject.API.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: SampleProject.Application src/SampleProject.Application/SampleProject.Application.csproj
D10 · Test Quality
- Mock framework: NSubstitute
- Mock framework: NSubstitute
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 4 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet list src/SampleProject.API.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 15 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — Data compliance (PII/GDPR) was not assessed in this scan — no ruleset is currently available for it. This says nothing about how this repository handles personal data, in either direction. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: 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 published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner: not applicable — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
Appendix C — Personal-data map
Email — 14 field(s)
- EmailsSettings.FromAddressEmail src/SampleProject.Application/Configuration/Emails/EmailsSettings.cs:5
- CustomerDetailsDto.Email src/SampleProject.Application/Customers/GetCustomerDetails/CustomerDto.cs:11
- CustomerDetailsDto.WelcomeEmailWasSent src/SampleProject.Application/Customers/GetCustomerDetails/CustomerDto.cs:13
- RegisterCustomerCommand.Email src/SampleProject.Application/Customers/RegisterCustomer/RegisterCustomerCommand.cs:8
- RegisterCustomerRequest.Email src/SampleProject.Application/Customers/RegisterCustomer/RegisterCustomerRequest.cs:5
- OrderPlacedNotificationHandler._emailSender src/SampleProject.Application/Orders/PlaceCustomerOrder/OrderPlacedNotificationHandler.cs:13
- OrderPlacedNotificationHandler._emailsSettings src/SampleProject.Application/Orders/PlaceCustomerOrder/OrderPlacedNotificationHandler.cs:14
- SendEmailAfterPaymentCommandHandler._emailSender src/SampleProject.Application/Payments/SendEmailAfterPayment/SendEmailAfterPaymentCommandHandler.cs:12
- Customer._email src/SampleProject.Domain/Customers/Customer.cs:17
- Customer._welcomeEmailWasSent src/SampleProject.Domain/Customers/Customer.cs:23
- CustomerEmailMustBeUniqueRule._email src/SampleProject.Domain/Customers/Rules/CustomerEmailMustBeUniqueRule.cs:9
- Payment._emailNotificationIsSent src/SampleProject.Domain/Payments/Payment.cs:17
- EmailModule._emailSender src/SampleProject.Infrastructure/Emails/EmailModule.cs:9
- EmailModule._emailsSettings src/SampleProject.Infrastructure/Emails/EmailModule.cs:10