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.
leptos-rs/leptos carries serious gaps (36%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (23%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Code Health (39%) is the next concern — changes there are slower and more error-prone.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO… (DR & Backup); Keep the changelog current (Release Hygiene).
For scale: — (~0 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly — (—). Approximate, ±~30%.
Code Health
39%
Weak · gated by D2, R1, R2, R3
Maturity
73%
Strong
Readiness
23% ⚠
Critical · gated by D8, D9, R6, P2, P5, P6
Security
55%
Adequate · gated by D29, D36, D38
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 23% · 50% weightCode Health 39% · 27% weightSecurity 55% · 15% weightMaturity 73% · 8% weight
Raise Readiness 23 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 36 → ~51.
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
3
Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. The rest can wait behind it.
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Good
The Ugly
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 50 | High / Critical |
| A03:2021 — Injection | 39 | High / Critical |
| A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures | 2 | High / Critical |
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 2 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, implement structured logging and health checks across all services to establish baseline observability. Next, codify disaster recovery and backup procedures in infrastructure code, ensuring clear RTO/RPO documentation. Then, maintain an accurate changelog for every release to preserve release history. Finally, integrate missing linting and type-checking tools into the CI pipeline and address the single gap in automated test coverage.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. | +15.1 pts | Low | Code Coverage |
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +15.1 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. | +17.4 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery. | +17.4 pts | Medium | DR & Backup |
| Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub. | +16.8 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Add the missing tooling (eslint, tsc) as package.json scripts and run them in CI. | +16.5 pts | Medium | Tooling |
| Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically. | +15.1 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript. | +9.2 pts | Medium | Type Safety |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cargo.lock | 0.2 | Slop | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: [GHSA redacted] |
| leptos/tests/test_examples/suspense-tests/Cargo.lock | 1.7 | Slop | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: [GHSA redacted] |
| .github/workflows/run-cargo-make-task.yml | 4.4 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| server_fn/Cargo.lock | 4.4 | Mixed | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: [GHSA redacted] |
| .github/workflows/autofix.yml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/dependabot.yml | 5.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: dependabot-missing-cooldown |
| .github/workflows/ci.yml | 5.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/get-example-changed.yml | 5.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/get-leptos-changed.yml | 5.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| examples/hackernews_islands_axum/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js | 7.1 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: clickToReq (cyclomatic 18) |
| leptos_hot_reload/src/patch.js | 7.2 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: patch (cyclomatic 48) |
| examples/hackernews_js_fetch/deno.lock | 7.2 | Mixed | Secrets (history): Secret: generic-api-key |
| .github/workflows/get-examples-matrix.yml | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/get-leptos-matrix.yml | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/publish-book.yml | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| leptos/src/hydration/island_script.js | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: traverse (cognitive 16) |
| docs/book/src/01_introduction.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: Title '01_introduction' is a numbered section header with no content and the body is an HTML redirect pointing to documentation (leptos.dev) rather than describing any architectural decision |
| docs/book/src/15_global_state.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: Only a canonical link and no context/problem or decision; the body is an external book reference |
| docs/book/src/async/10_resources.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: This is a canonical link pointing to an external book resource page; no context/problem or explicit decision for the referenced resources |
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. 47 of 50 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 0.7 — 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.
What we checked — 50 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D7D8D9D12D13D15D16D19D20D21D26D27D28D29D31D33D34D35D36D37D38AX5M1M2M3M4P1P11P2P3P4P5P6R1R10R2R3R5R6R7R8R9X1X3X4
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, 159 of 169 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D18 Solution Shape — evaluation did not complete — Dimension evaluation failed — excluded from the score.
- 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.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D7 Architectural Integrity: Layering is checked against detected/declared rules — an architecture whose boundaries live in convention or in code review, not in a rule a scanner can read, is not enforced here.
- D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- 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").
- 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.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- 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").
- 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.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
4 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was patch at 48.
patch (cyclomatic 48)leptos_hot_reload/src/patch.js:2
buildActualChildren (cyclomatic 28)leptos_hot_reload/src/patch.js:282
clickToReq (cyclomatic 18)leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js:84
replaceFor (cyclomatic 16)leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js:234
What to do
- Resolve the 1 patch (cyclomatic 48) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with patch.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 buildActualChildren (cyclomatic 28) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with patch.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 clickToReq (cyclomatic 18) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with islands_routing.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity 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?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
6 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was patch at 124.
patch (cognitive 124)leptos_hot_reload/src/patch.js:2
buildActualChildren (cognitive 84)leptos_hot_reload/src/patch.js:282
replaceFor (cognitive 22)leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js:234
diffRange (cognitive 18)leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js:178
clickToReq (cognitive 17)leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js:84
What to do
- Resolve the 1 patch (cognitive 124) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with patch.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 buildActualChildren (cognitive 84) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with patch.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 replaceFor (cognitive 22) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with islands_routing.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cognitive Complexity 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?
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
0 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
What to do
- 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?
D7 · Architectural Integrity
Of 0 mechanizable ADRs, 0 are prevented by analyzers, 0 by tests, 0 exist only in prose. Coverage: 100 %. Cycles found: 0.
What to do
- Enforce Architectural Integrity 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?
D8 · Code Coverage
No automated tests — the solution has no test code.
No automated tests
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
No test projects found.
No tests found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
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?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
Top hotspots: leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js (2×18=36)
Hotspot: leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.jsleptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The documentation is excellent: an authoritative README for Leptos covering a working SimpleCounter component and a reactive_stores macro README plus two dedicated docs pages for reactive_graph (with fine-grained reactivity principles, source/subscriber node modeling, and the concrete double_count example), plus a projects README describing the `projects` directory as a curated showcase of integrations. The visible content is clear, complete, and well-structured.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
Evaluated 58 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 1.9/10 (frequently incomplete). 56 flagged with a specific gap.
This is a link-only redirect to an external book page; no context/problem and no explicit decision in the body docs/book/src/async/11_suspense.md
Only a canonical link and no context/problem or decision in the visible portion docs/book/src/ssr/21_cargo_leptos.md
This is a canonical link pointing to an external documentation page rather than an ADR; no context, decision, or consequences are present docs/book/src/view/03_components.md
Title '01_introduction' is a numbered section header with no content and the body is an HTML redirect pointing to documentation (leptos.dev) rather than describing any architectural decision docs/book/src/01_introduction.md
Only a canonical link and no context/problem or decision; the body is an external book reference docs/book/src/15_global_state.md
What to do
- Resolve the 4 This is a link-only redirect to an external book page; no… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 11_suspense.md (2), 13_actions.md (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 4 Only a canonical link and no context/problem or decision in the visible… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 01_basic_component.md (2), 21_cargo_leptos.md (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 4 This is a canonical link pointing to an external documentation page… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 03_components.md (2), 07_errors.md (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
No projects to assess.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
Too little code to assess navigability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
Secret: generic-api-keyexamples/hackernews_js_fetch/deno.lock:29
Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
39 finding(s): 0 critical, 39 high, 0 medium, 0 low.
High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:3
What to do
- Resolve the 39 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with run-cargo-make-task.yml (25), autofix.yml (3), ci.yml (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (39 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
2 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 1 low.
High IaC: DS-0002examples/hackernews_islands_axum/Dockerfile
Low IaC: DS-0026examples/hackernews_islands_axum/Dockerfile
Do you agree with this assessment?
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
Unpinned build actions
No build provenance
No artifact signing
No SBOM
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
82 finding(s): 0 critical, 16 high, 59 medium, 7 low.
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Cargo.lock
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Cargo.lock
What to do
- Resolve the 34 Medium CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with Cargo.lock (34). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (34 warning-level).
- Resolve the 16 High CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with Cargo.lock (16). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
- 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 production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
- A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (dotnet test / npm test / pytest / a test job) was matched — the gate may be running tests, or "test" may be incidental (a path, "latest", a reporter). Make the test step explicit so the gate is unambiguous.
What to do
- Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (e.g. `dotnet test`) and gate merges on it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P11 · BDD / executable specs
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
What to do
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.
What to do
- Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
- Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P5 · DR & Backup
- A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.
What to do
- Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
- A changelog exists but has few versioned entries — keep it current with each release.
What to do
- Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub.
- Stamp a version (csproj <Version>, a VERSION file, or GitVersion) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R1 · Type Safety
- 2 typed · 5 plain JS
What to do
- Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R10 · Code Duplication
- projects/hexagonal-architecture/end2end/playwright.config.ts:49 · projects/openapi-openai-api-swagger-ui/end2end/playwright.config.ts:49 — playwright.config.ts:49
- leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js:316 · leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js:361 — islands_routing.js:316
- leptos_hot_reload/src/patch.js:147 · leptos_hot_reload/src/patch.js:183 — patch.js:147
- leptos_hot_reload/src/patch.js:334 · leptos_hot_reload/src/patch.js:412 — patch.js:334
- leptos_hot_reload/src/patch.js:368 · leptos_hot_reload/src/patch.js:389 — patch.js:368
- leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js:246 · leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js:265 — islands_routing.js:246
- projects/hexagonal-architecture/end2end/tests/example.spec.ts:1 · projects/openapi-openai-api-swagger-ui/end2end/tests/example.spec.ts:1 — example.spec.ts:1
What to do
- Extract the duplicated blocks into shared functions/components.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Branch-heavy code is where defects cluster — extract decisions into smaller functions. (×5) — patch.js:2, patch.js:282, islands_routing.js:84, …
What to do
- Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R3 · Large Files
- 1 file(s) over 400 lines
What to do
- Split the oversized components into smaller, focused ones.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R5 · Dependency Freshness
What to do
- Bump outdated dependencies to current versions to limit upgrade debt.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R6 · Tooling
- test ✓ · lint ✗ · typecheck ✗
What to do
- Add the missing tooling (eslint, tsc) as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R7 · Dead Code
- 5 file(s) (~981 LoC) were excluded from dead-code analysis — declare main/module/exports or a conventional entry (src/index.*, an index.html script) so reachability can see this package.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R8 · Dependency Hygiene
Do you agree with this assessment?
R9 · Circular Imports
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 39% | Weak — gated by D2, R1, R2, R3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Maturity | 73% | Strong | Strongest area. |
| Readiness | 23% | Critical — gated by D8, D9, R6, P2, P5, P6 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 55% | Adequate — gated by D29, D36, D38 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 54 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC3 Page structure — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX10 Code composition — no source files detected — code composition not applicable
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — no csproj graph available
- AX4 Dependency direction — no csproj graph available
- AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- D10 Test Quality — No tests in the analyzed solution to assess for quality.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D14 License Compliance — license scan produced no result — the tool ran but its JSON output could not be parsed; the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing
- D17 Explicit Debt — the C# workspace loaded 0 projects, so explicit-debt density could not be measured
- D18 Solution Shape — Dimension evaluation failed
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Zero projects and zero LoC mean the codebase is trivial and has no structure to justify boundaries.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — none of 58 ADRs are conformance-checkable — unverifiable.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — No .NET solution found; no NuGet dependencies to scan for vulnerabilities.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — No production classes were analyzable, so cohesion (LCOM4) was not measured (the solution likely failed to load or has no production code).
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — no C# methods found
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core 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.
- R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
- R4 Test Coverage — 2 test file(s) reach none of 5 production file(s) via imports — exercised outside the JS import graph (integration/bundled), not import-reachable
- S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 59 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:3
- High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:8
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/autofix.yml:21
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/autofix.yml:22
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/autofix.yml:36
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:64
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:66
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/get-example-changed.yml:22
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/get-example-changed.yml:27
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/get-examples-matrix.yml:20
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/get-leptos-changed.yml:16
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/get-leptos-changed.yml:21
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/get-leptos-matrix.yml:16
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/publish-book.yml:15
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/run-cargo-make-task.yml:26
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/run-cargo-make-task.yml:60
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/run-cargo-make-task.yml:69
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/run-cargo-make-task.yml:71
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/run-cargo-make-task.yml:77
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/run-cargo-make-task.yml:79
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/run-cargo-make-task.yml:86
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/run-cargo-make-task.yml:93
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/run-cargo-make-task.yml:100
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/run-cargo-make-task.yml:107
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/run-cargo-make-task.yml:116
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Cargo.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Cargo.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Cargo.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Cargo.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Cargo.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Cargo.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Cargo.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] leptos/tests/test_examples/suspense-tests/Cargo.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] leptos/tests/test_examples/suspense-tests/Cargo.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] server_fn/Cargo.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] server_fn/Cargo.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] server_fn/Cargo.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] server_fn/Cargo.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] server_fn/Cargo.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] server_fn/Cargo.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] server_fn/Cargo.lock
D18 · Solution Shape
- Dimension evaluation failed
D28 · Secrets (history)
- Secret: generic-api-key examples/hackernews_js_fetch/deno.lock:29
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- High IaC: DS-0002 examples/hackernews_islands_axum/Dockerfile
D8 · Code Coverage
- No automated tests
Warning — 102 finding(s)
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0190 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2023-0089 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0044 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0045 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0046 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0047 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0048 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0007 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0221 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0186 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2024-0436 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2024-0370 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0173 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0037 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0185 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0097 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0001 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0122 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0233 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0234 Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: RUSTSEC-2026-0235 Cargo.lock
D20 · ADR Quality
- This is a link-only redirect to an external book page; no context/problem and no explicit decision in the body docs/book/src/async/11_suspense.md
- This is a link-only redirect to an external book page; no context/problem and no explicit decision in the body docs/book/src/async/13_actions.md
- This is a link-only redirect to an external book page; no context/problem and no explicit decision in the body docs/book_ru/src/async/11_suspense.md
- This is a link-only redirect to an external book page; no context/problem and no explicit decision in the body docs/book_ru/src/async/13_actions.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Only a canonical link and no context/problem or decision in the visible portion docs/book/src/ssr/21_cargo_leptos.md
- Only a canonical link and no context/problem or decision in the visible portion docs/book/src/view/01_basic_component.md
- Only a canonical link and no context/problem or decision in the visible portion docs/book_ru/src/ssr/21_cargo_leptos.md
- Only a canonical link and no context/problem or decision in the visible portion docs/book_ru/src/view/01_basic_component.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- This is a canonical link pointing to an external documentation page rather than an ADR; no context, decision, or consequences are present docs/book/src/view/03_components.md
- This is a canonical link pointing to an external documentation page rather than an ADR; no context, decision, or consequences are present docs/book/src/view/07_errors.md
- This is a canonical link pointing to an external documentation page rather than an ADR; no context, decision, or consequences are present docs/book_ru/src/view/03_components.md
- This is a canonical link pointing to an external documentation page rather than an ADR; no context, decision, or consequences are present docs/book_ru/src/view/07_errors.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Title '01_introduction' is a numbered section header with no content and the body is an HTML redirect pointing to documentation (leptos.dev) rather than describing any architectural decision docs/book/src/01_introduction.md
- Title '01_introduction' is a numbered section header with no content and the body is an HTML redirect pointing to documentation (leptos.dev) rather than describing any architectural decision docs/book_ru/src/01_introduction.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Only a canonical link and no context/problem or decision; the body is an external book reference docs/book/src/15_global_state.md
- Only a canonical link and no context/problem or decision; the body is an external book reference docs/book_ru/src/15_global_state.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- This is a canonical link pointing to an external book resource page; no context/problem or explicit decision for the referenced resources docs/book/src/async/10_resources.md
- This is a canonical link pointing to an external book resource page; no context/problem or explicit decision for the referenced resources docs/book_ru/src/async/10_resources.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Only a canonical link and no context or decision; the body is clipped by the refresh meta docs/book/src/async/12_transition.md
- Only a canonical link and no context or decision; the body is clipped by the refresh meta docs/book_ru/src/async/12_transition.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- This is a link-only documentation reference; no context/problem and no explicit decision docs/book/src/reactivity/14_create_effect.md
- This is a link-only documentation reference; no context/problem and no explicit decision docs/book_ru/src/reactivity/14_create_effect.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Only a canonical link and refresh meta redirect are present; no context/problem or explicit decision docs/book/src/router/16_routes.md
- Only a canonical link and refresh meta redirect are present; no context/problem or explicit decision docs/book_ru/src/router/16_routes.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- No context/problem and no consequences; only a canonical link is present docs/book/src/router/17_nested_routing.md
- No context/problem and no consequences; only a canonical link is present docs/book_ru/src/router/17_nested_routing.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- This is a canonical link pointing to an external book rather than an ADR; no context/problem or explicit decision in the visible text docs/book/src/router/18_params_and_queries.md
- This is a canonical link pointing to an external book rather than an ADR; no context/problem or explicit decision in the visible text docs/book_ru/src/router/18_params_and_queries.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- This is a redirect link to an external documentation page; no context/problem and no decision are present docs/book/src/router/20_form.md
- This is a redirect link to an external documentation page; no context/problem and no decision are present docs/book_ru/src/router/20_form.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- This is a canonical link pointing to an external book rather than an ADR; no context, decision, or consequences are present docs/book/src/server/25_server_functions.md
- This is a canonical link pointing to an external book rather than an ADR; no context, decision, or consequences are present docs/book_ru/src/server/25_server_functions.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- This is a canonical link pointing to an external documentation page; no context/problem and no explicit decision in the body docs/book/src/server/26_extractors.md
- This is a canonical link pointing to an external documentation page; no context/problem and no explicit decision in the body docs/book_ru/src/server/26_extractors.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- This is a redirect to an internal documentation page; no context/problem and no explicit decision in the body docs/book/src/server/27_response.md
- This is a redirect to an internal documentation page; no context/problem and no explicit decision in the body docs/book_ru/src/server/27_response.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- This is a canonical link pointing to an external SSR book chapter rather than an ADR; no context, decision, or consequences are present docs/book/src/ssr/22_life_cycle.md
- This is a canonical link pointing to an external SSR book chapter rather than an ADR; no context, decision, or consequences are present docs/book_ru/src/ssr/22_life_cycle.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Only a canonical link and no context/problem or decision; the body is clipped by the scanner docs/book/src/ssr/23_ssr_modes.md
- Only a canonical link and no context/problem or decision; the body is clipped by the scanner docs/book_ru/src/ssr/23_ssr_modes.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Only a canonical link and no context/problem or consequences; the body is clipped by the scanner docs/book/src/ssr/24_hydration_bugs.md
- Only a canonical link and no context/problem or consequences; the body is clipped by the scanner docs/book_ru/src/ssr/24_hydration_bugs.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- This is a link-only reference to an external book rather than an ADR; no context/problem and no explicit decision docs/book/src/view/02_dynamic_attributes.md
- This is a link-only reference to an external book rather than an ADR; no context/problem and no explicit decision docs/book_ru/src/view/02_dynamic_attributes.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Decision is a link to documentation rather than an explicit decision statement; no context and no consequences docs/book/src/view/04_iteration.md
- Decision is a link to documentation rather than an explicit decision statement; no context and no consequences docs/book_ru/src/view/04_iteration.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Only the canonical link appears; no context/problem and no explicit decision in the visible portion docs/book/src/view/04b_iteration.md
- Only the canonical link appears; no context/problem and no explicit decision in the visible portion docs/book_ru/src/view/04b_iteration.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- This is a canonical link to an external documentation page rather than an ADR; no context/problem or explicit decision docs/book/src/view/05_forms.md
- This is a canonical link to an external documentation page rather than an ADR; no context/problem or explicit decision docs/book_ru/src/view/05_forms.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Title '06_control_flow' is a stub; no context/problem and no explicit decision in the visible portion. The canonical link points to an external book rather than an ADR. docs/book/src/view/06_control_flow.md
- Title '06_control_flow' is a stub; no context/problem and no explicit decision in the visible portion. The canonical link points to an external book rather than an ADR. docs/book_ru/src/view/06_control_flow.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- This is a link-only reference to an external book rather than an ADR; no context/problem or decision docs/book/src/view/08_parent_child.md
- This is a link-only reference to an external book rather than an ADR; no context/problem or decision docs/book_ru/src/view/08_parent_child.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Title '09_component_children' is a numbered decision stub with no context or consequences; the canonical documentation link points to an internal book rather than a real ADR docs/book/src/view/09_component_children.md
- Title '09_component_children' is a numbered decision stub with no context or consequences; the canonical documentation link points to an internal book rather than a real ADR docs/book_ru/src/view/09_component_children.md
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- patch (cyclomatic 48) leptos_hot_reload/src/patch.js:2
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- buildActualChildren (cyclomatic 28) leptos_hot_reload/src/patch.js:282
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- clickToReq (cyclomatic 18) leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js:84
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- replaceFor (cyclomatic 16) leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js:234
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- Hotspot: leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- patch (cognitive 124) leptos_hot_reload/src/patch.js:2
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- buildActualChildren (cognitive 84) leptos_hot_reload/src/patch.js:282
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- replaceFor (cognitive 22) leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js:234
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- diffRange (cognitive 18) leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js:178
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- clickToReq (cognitive 17) leptos/src/hydration/islands_routing.js:84
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- traverse (cognitive 16) leptos/src/hydration/island_script.js:12
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Unpinned build actions
Recommendation — 7 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D28 · Secrets (history)
- Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Low IaC: DS-0026 examples/hackernews_islands_axum/Dockerfile
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No build provenance
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No artifact signing
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No SBOM
D9 · Test Distribution
- No tests found
Info — 1 finding(s)
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 1 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 39 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet (no .NET solution) | — | dotnet (no .NET solution): not present in this environment | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 2 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 82 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |