Public report — tools, published 3 Aug 2026.
Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version;
ask the repo owner for the full report.
97findings with an exact file:lineof 112 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
38/95dimensions across the health lenses24727 LoC · 2 projects — wide & deep
Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
lfz233002072/tools carries serious gaps (48%). 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 (38%) — 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. Security (48%) is the next concern — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); Run what this repository's stack ships (Security & performance tooling); Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped… (Release Hygiene).
For scale: Medium (~24,727 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.2 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth 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.
This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€36,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 38% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.1) — library/CLI, CQRS × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Run what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 38%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Architecture — module dependency graph
Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
34 modules, 43 dependencies — 2 dependency cycles, shown as the red cell(s) above the diagonal. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A03:2021 — Injection
12
High / Critical
Roadmap
First, establish a continuous integration pipeline that builds the code and runs the test suite on every push or pull request. Next, integrate static application security testing, such as Semgrep or CodeQL, into that workflow to fail the build on security regressions. Then, implement a changelog to track release history and adopt OpenTelemetry for observability, including health checks. Finally, strengthen data protection by encrypting sensitive columns and securing keys using a dedicated vault or key management service.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Run what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Review each MD5/SHA1 use by what it protects: replace it with SHA-256+ (or a KDF for passwords) where the digest is security-relevant, and switch it to a non-cryptographic hash (`System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32`) where it only derives an identifier such as a cache key or a mutex name.
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. 35 of 38 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 0.4 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 38 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
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, 97 of 112 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
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.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D24 Comment Value — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (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").
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.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
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.
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.
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
LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
14 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was AppUnitity.KillProcess at 29. A further 1 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being WebHelper.IsStaticResource at 17 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score.
+ 9 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 AppUnitity.KillProcess (cyclomatic 29) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with AppUnitity.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Utils.GetDiffValue (cyclomatic 29) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Utils.PropertyAssignment.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 DatabaseInitialise.GetDataType (cyclomatic 28) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with IDatabaseInitialise.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cyclomatic Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 24 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Utils.TableConvertToList (cognitive 67) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Utils.partial.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Utils.GetDiffValue (cognitive 50) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Utils.PropertyAssignment.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 WebHelper.ModifyQueryString (cognitive 47) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with WebHelper.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cognitive Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
+ 4 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
4 test methods: 4 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
0 skipped, 3 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 4 tests (1 harness-style project(s) excluded from the assertion penalty).
No direct assertions: TestMethod1 · ×3Lfz.Core.Tests/UnitTest1.cs:14
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.
Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.
Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
This is a comprehensive README listing the toolset's features across 13 numbered sections (from 1 to 13) covering cache, CQRS/commanding, configuration, data persistence, file I/O, logging, ActiveMQ, socket, REST API, security, services, WCF hosting, and utilities. It also links both GitHub and OSChina repositories. The structure is clear but thin: it names no main project (e.g., Lfz.Core.NET4) and only the first line states 'C# 工具箱' with a single link; there are no architecture or usage docs to ground the collection.
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 6.0/10. — This is a comprehensive README listing the toolset's features across 13 numbered sections (from 1 to 13) covering cache, CQRS/commanding, configuration, data persistence, file I/O, logging, ActiveMQ, socket, REST API, security, services, WCF hosting, and utilities. It also links both GitHub and OSChina repositories. The structure is clear but thin: it names no main project (e.g., Lfz.Core.NET4) and only the first line states 'C# 工具箱' with a single link; there are no architecture or usage docs to ground the collection.
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
5 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
The namespace 'Lfz.Utitlies' contains multiple classes and methods. The spelling 'Utitlies' appears to be a typo for 'Utilities'. This typo is consistently applied across the namespace and its members, but the namespace name itself is misspelled compared to standard English and potentially other namespaces in the codebase (e.g., if there were a 'Lfz.Utilities' namespace, it would be an inconsistency, but here the typo is pervasive). However, looking at the list, we see 'Lfz.Utitlies' used repeatedly. Is there a 'Lfz.Utilities'? No. But wait, we see 'Lfz.Utitlies.Utils' and 'Lfz.Utitlies.TypeParse'. The typo 'Utitlies' is consistent within that namespace. However, we also see 'Lfz.Utitlies.Utils.GetDisplayName' and 'Lfz.Utitlies.Utils.MapPath'. The typo is consistent. Let's look for other typos or inconsistencies.
Inconsistency in the naming of network service classes. Some use 'Listen' (e.g., TcpListenServiceBase, UdpListenServiceBase), while others use 'Client' (TcpClientService, TcpClientAsyncService) or 'Sync/Async' distinctions. More importantly, 'UdpSyncListenReceviceService' contains a typo 'Recevice' instead of 'Receive'.
Inconsistency in the naming of base entity classes. 'EntityBase' is used in 'Lfz.Data.EntityBase' and 'Lfz.Data.Nh.Entities.EntityBase<T>', but 'CloneEntityBase' and 'EntityBaseExtenstions' (typo: Extenstions) suggest a different naming pattern or a typo. Specifically, 'EntityBaseExtenstions' has a typo 'Extenstions' instead of 'Extensions'.
The namespace 'Lfz.Utitlies' is misspelled (should be 'Utilities'). This affects all members within it.
Inconsistency in naming cryptographic helpers. Some use 'Helper' (TripleDESHelper), some use 'Utils' (CRCUtils), and some use specific class names (RSACryption). While not a direct contradiction, the lack of a consistent suffix (e.g., all ending in 'Helper' or 'Utils') is a minor inconsistency. However, the most glaring issue is the typo 'Utitlies' in the namespace.
What to do
Resolve the 1 The namespace 'Lfz.Utitlies' contains multiple classes and methods. The… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistency in the naming of network service classes. Some use… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistency in the naming of base entity classes. 'EntityBase' is used… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
High: csharp-sqli · ×12Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperSql.cs:84detected by semgrep finding
What to do
Resolve the 12 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with DbHelperSql.cs (10), SessionConfigurationCache.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').
Method: Roslyn scan: public interface member counts; fat-interface threshold (over 15 members) flagged per type. Deterministic, type-level.
`IWebHelper` declares 18 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IWebHelper.cs:8
`IRawSqlRepository<T>` declares 21 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IRawSqlRepository.cs:13
`IRepository<T>` declares 18 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IRepository.cs:14
`INhRepository<T>` declares 16 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — INhRepository.cs:10
`IBusinessService<TElement>` declares 22 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IBusinessService.cs:11
`IRawSqlSearchService` declares 19 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IRawSqlSearchService.cs:25
What to do
Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
Do you agree with this assessment?
C1 · Data Protection3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Security — Whether sensitive data is encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are vaulted.
Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: encryption presence (EF ColumnEncryption, key-vault references, HTTPS enforcement) and key-derivation KDF detection. Deterministic.
What to do
Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.
Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — AbstractDataServicesProvider.cs:101, AbstractDataServicesProvider.cs:106
What to do
Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×30) — DbHelperMySQL.cs:696, DbHelperMySQL.cs:697, DbHelperSql.cs:121, …
What to do
Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
The root README is 43 words — likely missing build/run/architecture context.
What to do
Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map.
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.
Add a README to the 2 of 2 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — 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.
No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
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).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
REST API实现封装
What to do
Reconcile the README with reality: REST API实现封装.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build.
What to do
Run what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Other · Security — Cryptographic hygiene (weak hash/cipher, password key-derivation). This codebase has no web surface, so transport/header/cookie/CSRF controls are N/A and only crypto is scored.
MD5/SHA1 is constructed here, and both are collision-broken. If this digest protects anything — a signature, an integrity or tamper check, a credential, or any value an attacker can influence — that is a real weakness: use SHA-256+ for content integrity, or a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage. If it only derives a non-security identifier (a cache key, a file or mutex name), collision resistance carries no security consequence here; make that intent explicit instead — a non-cryptographic hash such as `System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32` says it in code — since the algorithm alone cannot distinguish the two uses. — WXBizMsgCrypt.cs:226
DES / 3DES / RijndaelManaged-bare is deprecated or broken. Use AES-GCM via `Aes.Create()` with explicit key/iv sizes. — Cryptography.cs:98
What to do
Review each MD5/SHA1 use by what it protects: replace it with SHA-256+ (or a KDF for passwords) where the digest is security-relevant, and switch it to a non-cryptographic hash (`System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32`) where it only derives an identifier such as a cache key or a mutex name.
Replace DES/3DES (and bare RijndaelManaged) with AES-GCM via `Aes.Create()`.
Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
`throw e;` resets the exception's stack trace to this line, hiding where it really came from. Use a bare `throw;` to preserve the original stack. (×21) — DbHelperMySQL.cs:112, DbHelperMySQL.cs:134, DbHelperMySQL.cs:197, …
`throw ex;` resets the exception's stack trace to this line, hiding where it really came from. Use a bare `throw;` to preserve the original stack. (×2) — SerializationHelper.cs:135, SerializationHelper.cs:166
An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×2) — Utils.PropertyAssignment.cs:269, Utils.WinForm.cs:125
Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 57 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
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
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 — 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 reliability not measured — no test run produced results
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
D16 Bus Factor — early-stage repository — too few commits for a meaningful bus factor
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 24k LoC the codebase is small and single-purpose despite two projects, so explicit boundaries are not needed.
D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read; classic .NET Framework projects are packages.config by default). No packages could be enumerated, so there was nothing to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored, because an unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan
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) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
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.
D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
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
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this check looks for (3 CQRS handler(s))
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
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
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 — 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.
X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
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)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
High: csharp-sqli Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperSql.cs:84— Detected a formatted string in a SQL statement. This could lead to SQL injection if variables in the SQL statement are not properly sanitized. Bind every value as a parameter instead of building the statement text: add a `DbParameter` to `DbCommand.Parameters` for each value and reference it by name in the SQL. This works the same way for every ADO.NET provider. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
High: csharp-sqli Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperSql.cs:170— Detected a formatted string in a SQL statement. This could lead to SQL injection if variables in the SQL statement are not properly sanitized. Bind every value as a parameter instead of building the statement text: add a `DbParameter` to `DbCommand.Parameters` for each value and reference it by name in the SQL. This works the same way for every ADO.NET provider. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
High: csharp-sqli Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperSql.cs:195— Detected a formatted string in a SQL statement. This could lead to SQL injection if variables in the SQL statement are not properly sanitized. Bind every value as a parameter instead of building the statement text: add a `DbParameter` to `DbCommand.Parameters` for each value and reference it by name in the SQL. This works the same way for every ADO.NET provider. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
High: csharp-sqli Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperSql.cs:207— Detected a formatted string in a SQL statement. This could lead to SQL injection if variables in the SQL statement are not properly sanitized. Bind every value as a parameter instead of building the statement text: add a `DbParameter` to `DbCommand.Parameters` for each value and reference it by name in the SQL. This works the same way for every ADO.NET provider. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
High: csharp-sqli Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperSql.cs:235— Detected a formatted string in a SQL statement. This could lead to SQL injection if variables in the SQL statement are not properly sanitized. Bind every value as a parameter instead of building the statement text: add a `DbParameter` to `DbCommand.Parameters` for each value and reference it by name in the SQL. This works the same way for every ADO.NET provider. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
High: csharp-sqli Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperSql.cs:256— Detected a formatted string in a SQL statement. This could lead to SQL injection if variables in the SQL statement are not properly sanitized. Bind every value as a parameter instead of building the statement text: add a `DbParameter` to `DbCommand.Parameters` for each value and reference it by name in the SQL. This works the same way for every ADO.NET provider. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
High: csharp-sqli Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperSql.cs:294— Detected a formatted string in a SQL statement. This could lead to SQL injection if variables in the SQL statement are not properly sanitized. Bind every value as a parameter instead of building the statement text: add a `DbParameter` to `DbCommand.Parameters` for each value and reference it by name in the SQL. This works the same way for every ADO.NET provider. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
High: csharp-sqli Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperSql.cs:325— Detected a formatted string in a SQL statement. This could lead to SQL injection if variables in the SQL statement are not properly sanitized. Bind every value as a parameter instead of building the statement text: add a `DbParameter` to `DbCommand.Parameters` for each value and reference it by name in the SQL. This works the same way for every ADO.NET provider. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
High: csharp-sqli Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperSql.cs:352— Detected a formatted string in a SQL statement. This could lead to SQL injection if variables in the SQL statement are not properly sanitized. Bind every value as a parameter instead of building the statement text: add a `DbParameter` to `DbCommand.Parameters` for each value and reference it by name in the SQL. This works the same way for every ADO.NET provider. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
High: csharp-sqli Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperSql.cs:384— Detected a formatted string in a SQL statement. This could lead to SQL injection if variables in the SQL statement are not properly sanitized. Bind every value as a parameter instead of building the statement text: add a `DbParameter` to `DbCommand.Parameters` for each value and reference it by name in the SQL. This works the same way for every ADO.NET provider. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
High: insecure-binaryformatter-deserialization Lfz.Core/Data/SessionConfigurationCache.cs:89— The BinaryFormatter type is dangerous and is not recommended for data processing. Applications should stop using BinaryFormatter as soon as possible, even if they believe the data they're processing to be trustworthy. BinaryFormatter is insecure and can't be made secure
High: insecure-binaryformatter-deserialization Lfz.Core/Data/SessionConfigurationCache.cs:118— The BinaryFormatter type is dangerous and is not recommended for data processing. Applications should stop using BinaryFormatter as soon as possible, even if they believe the data they're processing to be trustworthy. BinaryFormatter is insecure and can't be made secure
EmptyCatchBlock Lfz.Core/Collections/CollectionExtensions.cs:271— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Lfz.Core/Utitlies/TypeParse.cs:347— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.PropertyAssignment.cs:269— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.WinForm.cs:125— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.cs:1047— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.partial.cs:343— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.partial.cs:522— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperMySQL.cs:313— Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperMySQL.cs:313-325 | Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperSql.cs:352-364 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperMySQL.cs:313` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Lfz.Core/Security/Cryptography/TripleDESHelper.cs:77— Lfz.Core/Security/Cryptography/TripleDESHelper.cs:77-89 | Lfz.Core/Security/Cryptography/TripleDESHelper.cs:110-122 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Lfz.Core/Security/Cryptography/TripleDESHelper.cs:77` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.cs:915— Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.cs:915-927 | Lfz.Core/WebHelper.cs:276-288 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.cs:915` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Lfz.Core/WebHelper.cs:331— Lfz.Core/WebHelper.cs:331-343 | Lfz.Core/WebHelper.cs:346-358 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Lfz.Core/WebHelper.cs:331` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
TooManyMethods: Utils Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 1015 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 94 methods, declared across 5 files: Utitlies/Utils.cs (51), Utitlies/Utils.partial.cs (31), Utitlies/Utils.WinForm.cs (7), Utitlies/Utils.PropertyAssignment.cs (4), +1 more file(s). The type holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group its members by. To reduce it, split it by area instead: give each cohesive family of members its own smaller type, so no one type has to be read whole to change one of them.
TooManyMethods: TypeParse Lfz.Core/Utitlies/TypeParse.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 326 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 82 methods. The type holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group its members by. To reduce it, split it by area instead: give each cohesive family of members its own smaller type, so no one type has to be read whole to change one of them.
TooManyMethods: RedisBase Lfz.Core/Redis/RedisBase.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 418 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 40 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TodoComment Lfz.Core/Data/Nh/SessionFactoryHolder.cs:120— //TODO 缓存配置实现 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Lfz.Core/Network/HttpListenServiceBase.cs:379— //TODO ReceviceCompleted��Ҫ����ʵ�� — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Lfz.Core/Security/Cryptography/FileCryptoHelper.cs:46— Lfz.Core/Security/Cryptography/FileCryptoHelper.cs:46-59 | Lfz.Core/Security/Cryptography/FileCryptoHelper.cs:82-96 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Lfz.Core/Security/Cryptography/FileCryptoHelper.cs:46` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Lfz.Core/WebApi/ApiHttpClient.cs:61— Lfz.Core/WebApi/ApiHttpClient.cs:61-74 | Lfz.Core/WebApi/ApiHttpClient.cs:84-97 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Lfz.Core/WebApi/ApiHttpClient.cs:61` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
AppUnitity.KillProcess (cyclomatic 29) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/AppUnitity.cs:159— AppUnitity.KillProcess has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
Utils.GetDiffValue (cyclomatic 29) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.PropertyAssignment.cs:25— Utils.GetDiffValue has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
DatabaseInitialise.GetDataType (cyclomatic 28) Lfz.Core/Data/RawSql/IDatabaseInitialise.cs:451— DatabaseInitialise.GetDataType has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
RawSqlSearchService.Format (cyclomatic 27) Lfz.Core/Data/RawSql/RawSqlSearchService.cs:301— RawSqlSearchService.Format has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
DigitToMoneyText.ConvertIntegral (cyclomatic 26) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/DigitToMoneyText.cs:271— DigitToMoneyText.ConvertIntegral has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Utils.TableConvertToList (cyclomatic 26) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.partial.cs:436— Utils.TableConvertToList has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Utils.SetValue (cyclomatic 24) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.PropertyAssignment.cs:192— Utils.SetValue has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
WebHelper.ModifyQueryString (cyclomatic 20) Lfz.Core/WebHelper.cs:297— WebHelper.ModifyQueryString has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
DigitToMoneyText.ConvertNumber (cyclomatic 18) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/DigitToMoneyText.cs:92— DigitToMoneyText.ConvertNumber has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
BusinessService.BuildUpdateSql (cyclomatic 17) Lfz.Core/Data/RawSql/BusinessService.cs:114— BusinessService.BuildUpdateSql has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
DatabaseInitialise.AddOrAlterColumn (cyclomatic 17) Lfz.Core/Data/RawSql/IDatabaseInitialise.cs:199— DatabaseInitialise.AddOrAlterColumn has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ExportEngine.ExportToBytes (cyclomatic 17) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/ExportEngine.cs:225— ExportEngine.ExportToBytes has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ExportEngine.ExportToExcel (cyclomatic 17) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/ExportEngine.cs:406— ExportEngine.ExportToExcel has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Utils.GetCompareValue (cyclomatic 17) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.PropertyAssignment.cs:152— Utils.GetCompareValue has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D11 · Test Reliability· Test reliability not measured · ×1
Test reliability not measured — no test run produced results — Test reliability NOT MEASURED: the test run produced no results for any test tier, so no test ever ran and flakiness could not be exercised. The cause could not be attributed, so it is excluded from the score rather than read as an absence of tests.
Utils.TableConvertToList (cognitive 67) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.partial.cs:436— Utils.TableConvertToList has cognitive complexity 67 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Utils.GetDiffValue (cognitive 50) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.PropertyAssignment.cs:25— Utils.GetDiffValue has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
WebHelper.ModifyQueryString (cognitive 47) Lfz.Core/WebHelper.cs:297— WebHelper.ModifyQueryString has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Utils.SetValue (cognitive 46) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.PropertyAssignment.cs:192— Utils.SetValue has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
DigitToMoneyText.ConvertNumber (cognitive 45) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/DigitToMoneyText.cs:92— DigitToMoneyText.ConvertNumber has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DigitToMoneyText.ConvertIntegral (cognitive 39) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/DigitToMoneyText.cs:271— DigitToMoneyText.ConvertIntegral has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Utils.GetSubString (cognitive 33) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.cs:727— Utils.GetSubString has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Of this number, 30 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
RawSqlSearchService.Format (cognitive 30) Lfz.Core/Data/RawSql/RawSqlSearchService.cs:301— RawSqlSearchService.Format has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
WebHelper.RemoveQueryString (cognitive 30) Lfz.Core/WebHelper.cs:393— WebHelper.RemoveQueryString has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
BusinessService.BuildUpdateSql (cognitive 27) Lfz.Core/Data/RawSql/BusinessService.cs:114— BusinessService.BuildUpdateSql has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
RawSqlSearchService.GetDictionary (cognitive 25) Lfz.Core/Data/RawSql/RawSqlSearchService.cs:361— RawSqlSearchService.GetDictionary has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Utils.GetCompareValue (cognitive 25) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.PropertyAssignment.cs:152— Utils.GetCompareValue has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DatabaseInitialise.CreateTable (cognitive 24) Lfz.Core/Data/RawSql/IDatabaseInitialise.cs:125— DatabaseInitialise.CreateTable has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Of this number, 23 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
DbHelperMySql.ExecuteSqlTran (cognitive 23) Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperMySQL.cs:479— DbHelperMySql.ExecuteSqlTran has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
HttpListenServiceBase.ProcessReceive (cognitive 23) Lfz.Core/Network/HttpListenServiceBase.cs:276— HttpListenServiceBase.ProcessReceive has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
PropertyConvertion.Apply (cognitive 22) Lfz.Core/Data/Nh/Conventions/RecordTableNameConvention.cs:82— PropertyConvertion.Apply has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
BusinessService.CreateOrUpdate (cognitive 22) Lfz.Core/Data/RawSql/BusinessService.cs:236— BusinessService.CreateOrUpdate has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
DatabaseInitialise.AddOrAlterColumn (cognitive 22) Lfz.Core/Data/RawSql/IDatabaseInitialise.cs:199— DatabaseInitialise.AddOrAlterColumn has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
HttpListenContext.HttpListenContext.ctor (cognitive 22) Lfz.Core/Network/HttpListenContext.cs:32— HttpListenContext.HttpListenContext.ctor has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ExportEngine.ExportToBytes (cognitive 21) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/ExportEngine.cs:225— ExportEngine.ExportToBytes has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ExportEngine.ExportToExcel (cognitive 21) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/ExportEngine.cs:406— ExportEngine.ExportToExcel has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Utils.GetDiffValue (cognitive 20) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.PropertyAssignment.cs:120— Utils.GetDiffValue has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Utils.UpdatePropertiesValue (cognitive 19) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.partial.cs:317— Utils.UpdatePropertiesValue has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
RawSqlSearchService.GetPaged (cognitive 18) Lfz.Core/Data/RawSql/RawSqlSearchService.cs:38— RawSqlSearchService.GetPaged has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ActiveMQPoolConnectionManager.GetPoolConnection (cognitive 17) Lfz.Core/Mq/ActiveMQ/ActiveMQPoolConnectionManager.cs:42— ActiveMQPoolConnectionManager.GetPoolConnection has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Utils.InIPArray (cognitive 17) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.cs:386— Utils.InIPArray has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Utils.GetSpell (cognitive 17) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.cs:1103— Utils.GetSpell has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
UrlOper.GetDomain (cognitive 16) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/UrlOper.cs:117— UrlOper.GetDomain has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Utils.GetUnicodeSubString (cognitive 16) Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.cs:685— Utils.GetUnicodeSubString has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.notable[4].suggestion | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 926.
FileTooLong: Utitlies/Utils.cs Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.cs:0— FileTooLong — 546 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) Lfz.Core/Network/HttpListenServiceBase.cs:182— Lfz.Core/Network/HttpListenServiceBase.cs:182-199 | Lfz.Core/Network/TcpListenServiceBase.cs:189-206 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperMySQL.cs:286— Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperMySQL.cs:286-301 | Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperSql.cs:325-340 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperMySQL.cs:286` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperMySQL.cs:219— Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperMySQL.cs:219-233 | Lfz.Core/Data/DbHelperSql.cs:259-273 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Lfz.Core/Media/WavPlayer.cs:93— Lfz.Core/Media/WavPlayer.cs:93-104 | Lfz.Core/Media/WavPlayer.cs:122-133 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Lfz.Core/Media/WavPlayer.cs:93` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) Lfz.Core/Data/RawSql/BusinessService.cs:239— Lfz.Core/Data/RawSql/BusinessService.cs:239-249 | Lfz.Core/Data/RawSql/BusinessService.cs:306-316 | Lfz.Core/Data/RawSql/BusinessService.cs:349-359 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Lfz.Core/Data/RawSql/BusinessService.cs:239` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Lfz.Core/Network/HttpListenServiceBase.cs:134— Lfz.Core/Network/HttpListenServiceBase.cs:134-142 | Lfz.Core/Network/TcpListenServiceBase.cs:117-125 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Lfz.Core/Network/HttpListenServiceBase.cs:134` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Lfz.Core/Security/Cryptography/StringDECHelper.cs:191— Lfz.Core/Security/Cryptography/StringDECHelper.cs:191-197 | Lfz.Core/Utitlies/Utils.cs:1002-1008 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Lfz.Core/Security/Cryptography/StringDECHelper.cs:191` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. No coverage collector was found in your CI either, so there is no existing report to hand us: add a coverage collector to your test run and commit (or publish) its Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov output anywhere in the repo, or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
No direct assertions: TestMethod1 Lfz.Core.Tests/UnitTest1.cs:14— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 3 of 4 tests in `Lfz.Core.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: RunconfigTest Lfz.Core.Tests/UnitTest1.cs:27— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 3 of 4 tests in `Lfz.Core.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: TestHelperInitConfig Lfz.Core.Tests/UnitTest1.cs:39— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 3 of 4 tests in `Lfz.Core.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
early-stage repository — too few commits for a meaningful bus factor — early-stage repository — too few commits for a meaningful bus factor (3 author(s) across 6 commit(s) sampled).
D21 · Naming Consistency· The namespace 'Lfz.Utitlies' contains multiple classes and methods. The spelling 'Utitlies' appears to be a typo for 'Utilities'. This typo is consistently applied across the namespace and its members, but the namespace name itself is misspelled compared to standard English and potentially other namespaces in the codebase (e.g., if there were a 'Lfz.Utilities' namespace, it would be an inconsistency, but here the typo is pervasive). However, looking at the list, we see 'Lfz.Utitlies' used repeatedly. Is there a 'Lfz.Utilities'? No. But wait, we see 'Lfz.Utitlies.Utils' and 'Lfz.Utitlies.TypeParse'. The typo 'Utitlies' is consistent within that namespace. However, we also see 'Lfz.Utitlies.Utils.GetDisplayName' and 'Lfz.Utitlies.Utils.MapPath'. The typo is consistent. Let's look for other typos or inconsistencies. · ×1
The namespace 'Lfz.Utitlies' contains multiple classes and methods. The spelling 'Utitlies' appears to be a typo for 'Utilities'. This typo is consistently applied across the namespace and its members, but the namespace name itself is misspelled compared to standard English and potentially other namespaces in the codebase (e.g., if there were a 'Lfz.Utilities' namespace, it would be an inconsistency, but here the typo is pervasive). However, looking at the list, we see 'Lfz.Utitlies' used repeatedly. Is there a 'Lfz.Utilities'? No. But wait, we see 'Lfz.Utitlies.Utils' and 'Lfz.Utitlies.TypeParse'. The typo 'Utitlies' is consistent within that namespace. However, we also see 'Lfz.Utitlies.Utils.GetDisplayName' and 'Lfz.Utitlies.Utils.MapPath'. The typo is consistent. Let's look for other typos or inconsistencies. — Rename 'Lfz.Utitlies' to 'Lfz.Utilities' and all contained members to fix the spelling error. (symbols: Lfz.Utitlies.Utils, Lfz.Utitlies.TypeParse, Lfz.Utitlies.UrlOper, Lfz.Utitlies.AppUnitity, Lfz.Utitlies.PdfEngine, Lfz.Utitlies.DefaultSingleton`1)
D21 · Naming Consistency· Inconsistency in the naming of network service classes. Some use 'Listen' (e.g., TcpListenServiceBase, UdpListenServiceBase), while others use 'Client' (TcpClientService, TcpClientAsyncService) or 'Sync/Async' distinctions. More importantly, 'UdpSyncListenReceviceService' contains a typo 'Recevice' instead of 'Receive'. · ×1
Inconsistency in the naming of network service classes. Some use 'Listen' (e.g., TcpListenServiceBase, UdpListenServiceBase), while others use 'Client' (TcpClientService, TcpClientAsyncService) or 'Sync/Async' distinctions. More importantly, 'UdpSyncListenReceviceService' contains a typo 'Recevice' instead of 'Receive'. — Fix the typo 'Recevice' to 'Receive' in 'Lfz.Network.UdpSyncListenReceviceService'. (symbols: Lfz.Network.UdpSyncListenReceviceService, Lfz.Network.UdpListenServiceBase, Lfz.Network.TcpListenServiceBase, Lfz.Network.TcpClientService, Lfz.Network.TcpClientAsyncService, Lfz.Network.HttpListenContext, Lfz.Network.HttpListenServiceBase)
D21 · Naming Consistency· Inconsistency in the naming of base entity classes. 'EntityBase' is used in 'Lfz.Data.EntityBase' and 'Lfz.Data.Nh.Entities.EntityBase<T>', but 'CloneEntityBase' and 'EntityBaseExtenstions' (typo · ×1
Inconsistency in the naming of base entity classes. 'EntityBase' is used in 'Lfz.Data.EntityBase' and 'Lfz.Data.Nh.Entities.EntityBase<T>', but 'CloneEntityBase' and 'EntityBaseExtenstions' (typo: Extenstions) suggest a different naming pattern or a typo. Specifically, 'EntityBaseExtenstions' has a typo 'Extenstions' instead of 'Extensions'. — Fix the typo 'Extenstions' to 'Extensions' in 'Lfz.Data.EntityBaseExtenstions'. (symbols: Lfz.Data.EntityBase.Id, Lfz.Data.EntityBaseExtenstions, Lfz.Data.CloneEntityBase, Lfz.Data.Nh.Entities.EntityBase<T>)
D21 · Naming Consistency· The namespace 'Lfz.Utitlies' is misspelled (should be 'Utilities'). This affects all members within it. · ×1
The namespace 'Lfz.Utitlies' is misspelled (should be 'Utilities'). This affects all members within it. — Rename 'Lfz.Utitlies' to 'Lfz.Utilities'. (symbols: Lfz.Utitlies.Utils, Lfz.Utitlies.TypeParse, Lfz.Utitlies.UrlOper, Lfz.Utitlies.AppUnitity, Lfz.Utitlies.PdfEngine, Lfz.Utitlies.DefaultSingleton`1)
D21 · Naming Consistency· Inconsistency in naming cryptographic helpers. Some use 'Helper' (TripleDESHelper), some use 'Utils' (CRCUtils), and some use specific class names (RSACryption). While not a direct contradiction, the lack of a consistent suffix (e.g., all ending in 'Helper' or 'Utils') is a minor inconsistency. However, the most glaring issue is the typo 'Utitlies' in the namespace. · ×1
Inconsistency in naming cryptographic helpers. Some use 'Helper' (TripleDESHelper), some use 'Utils' (CRCUtils), and some use specific class names (RSACryption). While not a direct contradiction, the lack of a consistent suffix (e.g., all ending in 'Helper' or 'Utils') is a minor inconsistency. However, the most glaring issue is the typo 'Utitlies' in the namespace. — Consider standardizing the suffix for cryptographic classes, e.g., 'RSACryptionHelper' or 'RSACryptoUtils'. (symbols: Lfz.Security.Cryptography.RSACryption.SignatureFormatter, Lfz.Security.Cryptography.TripleDESHelper, Lfz.Security.Cryptography.CRCUtils, Lfz.Security.Cryptography.RSACryption.RSADecrypt)
Split Lfz.Core.NET4 — A .NET 4 assembly at 25k LoC and 270 types across 34 namespaces is a huge grab-bag that must be split. Suggested: by namespace: Lfz.IO, Lfz.Collections, Lfz.Text
early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness (6 commit(s) sampled).
git history depth insufficient — git history depth insufficient — install a full clone for reliable trend signal.
D18 · Solution Shape· Build did not complete in the analyzer · ×1
Build did not complete in the analyzer — `dotnet build` reported 2 error(s) but no C# compiler diagnostic, so this is a build-environment gap rather than a code defect. The usual causes are a project that targets a platform this run cannot build (a Windows-only target framework on a Linux worker) or a build step that shells out to a tool the image does not carry. Solution Shape is scored on structure and is NOT capped. Semantic analysis is independent of this build and covers every project that loaded — but a project whose restore did not complete has no resolved references, so treat its results as absent rather than clean. Worth checking on your side too: a build that needs undeclared host tooling, or that cannot run off its own platform, is the same wall a new contributor hits.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· No exposed public API · ×1
No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
D35 · Change Coupling· git history depth insufficient · ×1
git history depth insufficient — git history depth insufficient — a full clone gives reliable change-coupling.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
dotnet: not applicable — `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read; classic .NET Framework projects are packages.config by default). No packages could be enumerated, so there was nothing to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored, because an unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
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.
provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
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.
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.
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.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
0
—
Run 019fc880-58db-7c1e-8bab-240a3033b55b · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Appendix C — Personal-data map
Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 2 field(s) across 1 category, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.
Issues: 19 · Warnings: 77 · Recommendations: 11 · Info: 5 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 03-08-2026 @ 16:41 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.