Public report — Memoria, published 29 Jul 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdog 29-07-2026 @ 19:31 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Lucabriguglia/Memoria

50% Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
lower third — near Weak

Small · 11,123 LoC · 33 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Security (43%)

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

60/64dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 4 LLM-assisted, advisory
51findings with an exact file:lineof 99 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
64/105dimensions across the health lenses11123 LoC · 33 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.

lucabriguglia/Memoria is sound in substance but carries real gaps (50%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.

It is strongest in Code Health (89%) — the code is clean and low-risk to change. Architecture (81%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Security (43%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Readiness (50%) is the next concern — 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.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection /… (Data Protection); SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships (Security & performance tooling); EnsureCreated() with a versioned schema-migration mechanism (EF… (Schema migrations).

For scale: Small (~11,123 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Code Health foundation (89%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Security 43% · 46% weightReadiness 50% · 25% weightDomain Modelling 57% · 14% weightPerformance 60% · 8% weightMaturity 64% · 4% weightArchitecture 81% · 2% weightCode Health 89% · 1% weight

Raise Security 43 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 50 → ~56.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 11%Plumbing 54%Tests 34%
New since the last scan (18+)

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

  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.Caching.Memory examples/Memoria.Examples.Caching.Memory/Memoria.Examples.Caching.Memory.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.Caching.Redis examples/Memoria.Examples.Caching.Redis/Memoria.Examples.Caching.Redis.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.Cosmos examples/Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.Cosmos/Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.Cosmos.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.EntityFrameworkCore examples/Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.EntityFrameworkCore/Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.EntityFrameworkCore.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.Messaging.RabbitMq examples/Memoria.Examples.Messaging.RabbitMq/Memoria.Examples.Messaging.RabbitMq.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.Messaging.ServiceBus examples/Memoria.Examples.Messaging.ServiceBus/Memoria.Examples.Messaging.ServiceBus.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Identity src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Identity/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Identity.csproj
  • D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
  • D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
  • D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: FluentValidationProvider.cs ↔ ValidationService.cs src/Memoria.Validation.FluentValidation/FluentValidationProvider.cs
  • D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: CosmosDomainService.cs ↔ GetInMemoryAggregate.cs src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDomainService.cs
  • D35 · Change coupling: ICommandSender.cs ↔ IDispatcher.cs src/Memoria/Commands/ICommandSender.cs
  • D35 · Change coupling: CosmosDataStore.cs ↔ CosmosDomainService.cs src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDataStore.cs
  • D35 · Change coupling: EntityFrameworkCoreDomainService.cs ↔ GetInMemoryAggregate.cs src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore/EntityFrameworkCoreDomainService.cs
  • D35 · Change coupling: CommandSender.cs ↔ Dispather.cs src/Memoria/Commands/CommandSender.cs
  • D36 · Workflow token permissions not restricted
  • D36 · Secret passed as a command-line argument

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €5,900–€29,000
Cost to rebuild€5,900–€29,000 (0.1–0.2 person-years (99–308 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 50% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 67% boilerplate · 15% straight-line · 17% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€18,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 43% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.2) — library/CLI, CQRS, domain model × 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
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
+6.5 pts · Medium effort · Data Protection
2
Resolve the 2 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (2).
+3.1 pts · Low effort · Static Analysis (SAST)
3
Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
+2.7 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 43%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (11,123 LoC) · weakest lens: Security 43%
→ Direct remediation budget at Security first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Root cause: an un-encapsulated domain · Medium · Root cause
8 findings across public setters, anemic types and primitive ids share one root cause — the domain layer doesn't protect its own invariants. Fixing the encapsulation pattern resolves them together, rather than chasing each finding.
Evidence: DM5 setters: 1 · DM4 anemic: 3 · DM2 primitive ids: 4
→ Address encapsulation as one pattern (private setters + behaviour + strongly-typed ids), not 100 separate findings.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.). The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).

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.

arch Memoria Memoria Memoria.Caching.Memory Memory Memoria.Caching.Memory->Memoria Memoria.Caching.Redis Redis Memoria.Caching.Redis->Memoria Memoria.EventSourcing EventSourcing Memoria.EventSourcing->Memoria Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos Cosmos Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos->Memoria Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos->Memoria.EventSourcing Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory InMemory Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory->Memoria Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory->Memoria.EventSourcing Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory->Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore EntityFrameworkCore Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore->Memoria Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore->Memoria.EventSourcing Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Identity Identity Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Identity->Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Npgsql Npgsql Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Npgsql->Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq RabbitMq Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq->Memoria Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory InMemory Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory->Memoria Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus ServiceBus Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus->Memoria Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus.InMemory InMemory Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus.InMemory->Memoria Memoria.Validation.FluentValidation FluentValidation Memoria.Validation.FluentValidation->Memoria

At a glance — Code Health · 89% · Strong

At a glance — Architecture · 81% · Strong

At a glance — Maturity · 64% · Adequate · gated by M2

At a glance — Readiness · 50% · Weak · gated by P3, P8

At a glance — Security · 43% · Weak · gated by D36, C1

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 57% · Adequate · gated by DM2, DM4

At a glance — Performance · 60% · Adequate

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A03:2021 — Injection2High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components1High / Critical

Roadmap

First, encrypt sensitive data at rest and manage keys in a vault to secure stored information. Next, integrate a static analysis tool into the CI pipeline to automatically fail the build on security regressions. Then, replace the current database initialization with a versioned migration system to ensure safe schema evolution. Finally, restrict type visibility by making most types internal and resolve the identified high-priority static analysis findings.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).+6.5 ptsMediumData Protection
Resolve the 2 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (2).+3.1 ptsLowStatic Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+2.7 ptsLowDependency Hygiene
Resolve the 1 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities.+2.3 ptsLowDependency Vulnerabilities
Resolve the 1 Secret passed as a command-line argument finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+1.9 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+1.9 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 Workflow token permissions not restricted finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+1.9 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Add a SAST step to CI running 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 — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.+3.7 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 26 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 15% mixed · 85% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
.github/workflows/build.yml5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag
src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDataStore.cs6.9MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (12 lines × 2)
src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs7.0MixedCognitive Complexity: InMemoryCosmosDomainService.SaveAggregate (cognitive 20)
src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory/InMemoryRabbitMqStorage.cs7.8MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (17 lines × 2)
src/Memoria.Validation.FluentValidation/FluentValidationProvider.cs8.0Near-cleanChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: FluentValidationProvider.cs ↔ ValidationService.cs
src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDomainService.cs8.0Near-cleanChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: CosmosDomainService.cs ↔ GetInMemoryAggregate.cs
src/Memoria/Extensions/ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: ServiceCollectionExtensions.RegisterHandlers (cognitive 18)
src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore/Interceptors/AuditInterceptor.cs8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: AuditInterceptor.UpdateAuditFields (cognitive 17)
src/Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusMessagingProvider.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (15 lines × 2)
src/Memoria.Validation.FluentValidation/Extensions/ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (14 lines × 2)
src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory/InMemoryRabbitMqMessagingProvider.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (13 lines × 6)
src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqMessagingProvider.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)
examples/Memoria.Examples.Caching.Memory/Memoria.Examples.Caching.Memory.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.Caching.Memory
examples/Memoria.Examples.Caching.Redis/Memoria.Examples.Caching.Redis.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.Caching.Redis
examples/Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.Cosmos/Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.Cosmos.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.Cosmos
examples/Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.EntityFrameworkCore/Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.EntityFrameworkCore.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.EntityFrameworkCore
examples/Memoria.Examples.Messaging.RabbitMq/Memoria.Examples.Messaging.RabbitMq.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.Messaging.RabbitMq
examples/Memoria.Examples.Messaging.ServiceBus/Memoria.Examples.Messaging.ServiceBus.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.Messaging.ServiceBus
src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory
src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Identity/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Identity.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Identity

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 60 of 64 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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 — 64 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D36D39AX1AX10AX2AX3AX5AX6AX8AX9C1C3DM1DM2DM4DM5DM6DM8GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P3P6P8PF1PF2PF3X1X2X3X4X5

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 51 of 99 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019faf5c-6fea-74b7-8304-d5d9afaeab7a.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

A clean run — every tool resolved and ran, and every applicable dimension was measured at full confidence. No scanner was unavailable, no analysis timed out or crashed, and nothing fell back to a degraded estimate.

When something does degrade — a missing scanner, a shallow clone, an LLM hiccup — it is named here explicitly and its exact cause recorded in diagnostics.md, never absorbed silently into the score.

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.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (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.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
  • C3 Audit Trail: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — a working control configured outside the repository leaves no signal a static scan can credit.
  • DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
  • DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
  • 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 (5): D19, D21, D22, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was InMemoryCosmosDomainService.SaveAggregate at 20.

InMemoryCosmosDomainService.SaveAggregate (cognitive 20)src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:342
ServiceCollectionExtensions.RegisterHandlers (cognitive 18)src/Memoria/Extensions/ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs:48
AuditInterceptor.UpdateAuditFields (cognitive 17)src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore/Interceptors/AuditInterceptor.cs:29

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

D4 · Code Duplication9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

17 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×4src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:248
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×3src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:348
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×2src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:22
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDataStore.cs:97
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2)src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory/InMemoryRabbitMqStorage.cs:35

+ 5 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D5 · Coupling9.8 / 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.

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

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

Off the main sequence: Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Identity

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

0 of 23 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

181 test methods: 181 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

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.

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

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, 12 mock references across 181 tests.

Mock framework: NSubstitute · ×12

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

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

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

21 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 1 deprecated packages.

Deprecated: xunit
Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http · ×21

What to do

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

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 of 25 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDomainService.cs.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

0 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 11123 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md.

D18 · Solution Shape9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

33 projects, 337 source files, 16960 hand-written lines of code (11123 production / 5837 test), 70 inter-project edges.

Thin analysable surface across projects

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

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.

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

Memoria's documentation is clear and complete for a .NET framework with strong repository examples, release notes, and an outline of main features. The README gives a one-line overview plus a star-giving callout, while the release-notes.md covers each version change in detail (e.g. eventPropertyFilter working on non-string property values). A dedicated Getting started section links install/quickstart for mediator and Event Sourcing, with concepts covering mediator vs. event sourcing, aggregates/streams, read modes, providers, and a full roadmap outline. The README is clipped mid-features list but the release notes and getting-started are solid.

Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.Caching.Memory · ×8examples/Memoria.Examples.Caching.Memory/Memoria.Examples.Caching.Memory.csproj
The Concepts section begins ('### Concepts') then is cut off in the middle of 'Providers' before covering the outlined topics (read modes, providers, roadmap).docs/index.md
XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Caching.Memory · ×12src/Memoria.Caching.Memory/Memoria.Caching.Memory.csproj

What to do

  1. Resolve the 8 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with Memoria.Examples.Caching.Memory.csproj, Memoria.Examples.Caching.Redis.csproj, Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.Cosmos.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 The Concepts section begins ('### Concepts') then is cut off in the… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with index.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

2 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

The method `SetupActivity` is duplicated in two different `TestBase` classes (Cosmos and EntityFrameworkCore). While they may do similar things, the duplication suggests a shared base class or interface should be used to enforce consistency and avoid drift.
The interface `ICosmosDataStore` and its implementation `CosmosDataStore` both expose `GetEventDocuments`. However, the interface also exposes `GetAggregateEventDocuments`. The naming `GetEventDocuments` vs `GetAggregateEventDocuments` is slightly inconsistent in scope (all events vs aggregate-specific).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D22 · Internal API Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.

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

0 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 136 exposed types.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md.

D24 · Comment Value / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.

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

5 valuable / 0 redundant across 19 sampled comments; 2 shown with locations.

misleading comment · ×2examples/Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.EntityFrameworkCore/Program.cs:50

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 misleading comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Program.cs, InMemoryCosmosDataStore.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

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

0 of 33 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D27 · Navigability8.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps.

Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

87 % of calls cross a namespace and 8 % go through an interface, but 92 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

What to do

  1. Improve Navigability — currently 8.6/10. — 87 % of calls cross a namespace and 8 % go through an interface, but 92 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)7.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 7.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag · ×2.github/workflows/build.yml:15detected by semgrep finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs), direct or transitive.

Method: NuGet CVE scan via dotnet list package --vulnerable including transitive; severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades when absent.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3 2.1.11detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

D35 · Change Coupling9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: ICommandSender.cs↔IDispatcher.cs 61%; CosmosDataStore.cs↔CosmosDomainService.cs 60%; FluentValidationProvider.cs↔ValidationService.cs 60%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: FluentValidationProvider.cs ↔ ValidationService.cs · ×2src/Memoria.Validation.FluentValidation/FluentValidationProvider.cs
Change coupling: ICommandSender.cs ↔ IDispatcher.cs · ×4src/Memoria/Commands/ICommandSender.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

Unpinned build actions
Workflow token permissions not restricted
Secret passed as a command-line argument
No build provenance
No artifact signing

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Workflow token permissions not restricted finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Secret passed as a command-line argument finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

D39 · IL Efficiency10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Method: IL instruction count per method, read from the BUILT first-party assemblies via Mono.Cecil (the target is compiled on a deep run); scored on the fraction of methods whose emitted IL body exceeds the size threshold. Sees compiler-generated bloat source can't; not-applicable when the target fails to build. Deterministic.

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

0 of 479 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d39_recommendation.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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

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

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

AX10 · Code composition8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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).
AX2 · Stateful singletons4.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • `RabbitMqMessagingProvider` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_disposed; e.g. `_disposed` at line 355). — RabbitMqMessagingProvider.cs:15

What to do

  • Keep singletons stateless or back their state with thread-safe types (Concurrent*/Immutable*); otherwise concurrent callers race.
AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

AX6 · Interface segregation9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • `IDomainService` 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. — IDomainService.cs:6

What to do

  • Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

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

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

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

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

C1 · Data Protection0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

  • No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.

What to do

  • Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
  • Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
C3 · Audit Trail9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether changes to sensitive data are recorded (who, what, when) for compliance + incident response.

Method: Roslyn scan: audit-trail mechanism graded (SaveChanges interceptor/immutable AuditLog/[Audited] strong; bare IAuditable/AddAuditing weak). Deterministic.

  • An audit mechanism is present, but the trail is not yet complete — missing: a dedicated audit read-model (an audit-log/-trail/-entry projection) over the sensitive event streams.

What to do

  • Surface the who-changed-what trail: project the sensitive event streams into a dedicated audit read-model (an audit-log/-trail/-entry type) and make sure appended events carry the acting user.
DM1 · Aggregate boundaries10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • `Order.OrderId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. (×2) — Order.cs:14, Order.cs:14
  • `AggregateRoot.StreamId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that. — AggregateRoot.cs:13
  • `AggregateRoot.AggregateId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that. — AggregateRoot.cs:19

What to do

  • Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.
DM4 · Rich vs anemic model3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

  • `Order` is an aggregate/entity with 3 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. (×2) — Order.cs:6, Order.cs:6
  • `AggregateRoot` is an aggregate/entity with 6 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — AggregateRoot.cs:8

What to do

  • Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.
DM5 · Encapsulated state8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

  • `AggregateRoot` exposes publicly writable state (StreamId, AggregateId, Version, LatestEventSequence). — AggregateRoot.cs:8

What to do

  • Make entity setters private/init-only; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

DM8 · Value-object opportunities10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×25) — InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:527, DefaultDomainService.cs:14, DefaultDomainService.cs:20, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • `Dispose` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:525

What to do

  • Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
M1 · Documentation (README)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a 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 33 of 33 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • 165/182 types (91%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.

What to do

  • Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.
P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 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) as a CI step.

What to do

  • Add a SAST step to CI running 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 — 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.
P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

P8 · Schema migrations3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • `EnsureCreated()` builds the schema once and can't evolve it — there's no upgrade path for an existing production database, and it bypasses the migrations history. Adopt a versioned schema-migration mechanism (with EF Core: `dotnet ef migrations add` + `Migrate()` on startup) so schema changes are versioned and applied safely. — Program.cs:92

What to do

  • Replace EnsureCreated() with a versioned schema-migration mechanism (EF Core migrations) so the production schema can evolve safely and reproducibly.
PF1 · Benchmark discipline6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the library protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

  • No benchmark suite was found. For a performance-sensitive library, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

What to do

  • Add a benchmarking harness for the hot paths and run it in CI to catch regressions (for .NET, a BenchmarkDotNet project with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations).
PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

What to do

  • Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 5 use(s) across 11,623 production line(s) (~0.4/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code keeps its host responsive — a library awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) (so it never captures and stalls the host's context) and avoids sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) that wastes threads and risks deadlock.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) counted everywhere, and — for a library with ≥5 awaits — the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

  • Only 0/313 awaits use ConfigureAwait(false). A library that captures the caller's context can stall or deadlock its host — the classic way a dependency drags an app down.

What to do

  • In library code, append .ConfigureAwait(false) to every await (or set <ConfigureAwait>false</ConfigureAwait> / use the analyzer CA2007) so the library never captures the host's context.
X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

X2 · Cancellation propagation9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 127/128 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. — CosmosSetup.cs:17

What to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

X5 · Nullable reference types7.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • ~3.8 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

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

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health89%StrongStrongest area.
Architecture81%StrongSolid.
Maturity64%Adequate — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness50%Weak — gated by P3, P8Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security43%Weak — gated by D36, C1Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling57%Adequate — gated by DM2, DM4Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance60%AdequateAcceptable, with room to improve.
Not included — 41 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • 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
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
  • 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.
  • C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data (event-sourced storage — lifecycle is stream archival / event TTL, not row CASCADE) — 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.
  • 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.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — 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.
  • 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
  • DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
  • DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
  • ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): a message-bus package; 8 CQRS handler(s)
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — only 1/3 markers (3 aggregate(s) with Apply/When folds)
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
  • P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
  • 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
  • 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
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 5 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · High · ×2
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:15 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:17 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-dotnet@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-dotnet@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-dotnet/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×2
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: FluentValidationProvider.cs ↔ ValidationService.cs src/Memoria.Validation.FluentValidation/FluentValidationProvider.cs — `src/Memoria.Validation.FluentValidation/FluentValidationProvider.cs` (context Memoria.Validation.FluentValidation) and `src/Memoria/Validation/ValidationService.cs` (context Memoria) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: CosmosDomainService.cs ↔ GetInMemoryAggregate.cs src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDomainService.cs — `src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDomainService.cs` (context Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos) and `src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore/Extensions/DbContextExtensions/GetInMemoryAggregate.cs` (context Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 55% of the time (6 of the 11 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×1
  • High CVE: SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3 2.1.11 — SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3 2.1.11 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
Warning — 38 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×8
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.Caching.Memory examples/Memoria.Examples.Caching.Memory/Memoria.Examples.Caching.Memory.csproj — Memoria.Examples.Caching.Memory: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/3).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.Caching.Redis examples/Memoria.Examples.Caching.Redis/Memoria.Examples.Caching.Redis.csproj — Memoria.Examples.Caching.Redis: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/3).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.Cosmos examples/Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.Cosmos/Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.Cosmos.csproj — Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.Cosmos: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/18).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.EntityFrameworkCore examples/Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.EntityFrameworkCore/Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.EntityFrameworkCore.csproj — Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.EntityFrameworkCore: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/19).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.Messaging.RabbitMq examples/Memoria.Examples.Messaging.RabbitMq/Memoria.Examples.Messaging.RabbitMq.csproj — Memoria.Examples.Messaging.RabbitMq: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/7).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Examples.Messaging.ServiceBus examples/Memoria.Examples.Messaging.ServiceBus/Memoria.Examples.Messaging.ServiceBus.csproj — Memoria.Examples.Messaging.ServiceBus: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/7).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory.csproj — Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory: 7 % XML-doc coverage (3/40).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Identity src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Identity/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Identity.csproj — Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Identity: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/5).
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×4
  • Change coupling: ICommandSender.cs ↔ IDispatcher.cs src/Memoria/Commands/ICommandSender.cs — `src/Memoria/Commands/ICommandSender.cs` and `src/Memoria/IDispatcher.cs` change together 61% of the time (25 of the 41 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: CosmosDataStore.cs ↔ CosmosDomainService.cs src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDataStore.cs — `src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDataStore.cs` and `src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDomainService.cs` change together 60% of the time (12 of the 20 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. They already sit in the same directory, so if they share structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: EntityFrameworkCoreDomainService.cs ↔ GetInMemoryAggregate.cs src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore/EntityFrameworkCoreDomainService.cs — `src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore/EntityFrameworkCoreDomainService.cs` and `src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore/Extensions/DbContextExtensions/GetInMemoryAggregate.cs` change together 55% of the time (6 of the 11 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: CommandSender.cs ↔ Dispather.cs src/Memoria/Commands/CommandSender.cs — `src/Memoria/Commands/CommandSender.cs` and `src/Memoria/Dispather.cs` change together 55% of the time (6 of the 11 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:248 — src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:248-262 | src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDomainService.cs:362-376
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:273 — src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:273-287 | src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDomainService.cs:396-410
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:300 — src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:300-314 | src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDomainService.cs:433-447
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusMessagingProvider.cs:34 — src/Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusMessagingProvider.cs:34-48 | src/Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus/ServiceBusMessagingProvider.cs:69-83
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:348 — src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:348-363 | src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDomainService.cs:515-530
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:462 — src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:462-477 | src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDomainService.cs:613-628
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory/InMemoryRabbitMqStorage.cs:66 — src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory/InMemoryRabbitMqStorage.cs:66-81 | src/Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus.InMemory/InMemoryServiceBusStorage.cs:66-81
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:22 — src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:22-35 | src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDomainService.cs:57-70
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Memoria.Validation.FluentValidation/Extensions/ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs:30 — src/Memoria.Validation.FluentValidation/Extensions/ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs:30-43 | src/Memoria/Extensions/ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs:50-63
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDataStore.cs:97 — src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDataStore.cs:97-104 | src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDataStore.cs:115-122
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDataStore.cs:133 — src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDataStore.cs:133-140 | src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDataStore.cs:151-158
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×1
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.9.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · InMemoryCosmosDomainService.SaveAggregate (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • InMemoryCosmosDomainService.SaveAggregate (cognitive 20) src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:342 — InMemoryCosmosDomainService.SaveAggregate 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ServiceCollectionExtensions.RegisterHandlers (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • ServiceCollectionExtensions.RegisterHandlers (cognitive 18) src/Memoria/Extensions/ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs:48 — ServiceCollectionExtensions.RegisterHandlers has cognitive complexity 18 (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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AuditInterceptor.UpdateAuditFields (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • AuditInterceptor.UpdateAuditFields (cognitive 17) src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore/Interceptors/AuditInterceptor.cs:29 — AuditInterceptor.UpdateAuditFields 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.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Unpinned build actions · ×1
  • Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity. 2 floating ref(s) across 1 workflow file(s): `actions/checkout@v4` (.github/workflows/build.yml:15), `actions/setup-dotnet@v4` (.github/workflows/build.yml:17)
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Workflow token permissions not restricted · ×1
  • Workflow token permissions not restricted — No workflow declares a `permissions:` block, so every job runs with the repository's default GITHUB_TOKEN scope (1 workflow file(s) checked). On a repository whose default is read/write, a compromised action or a malicious pull request inherits write access to code, issues, releases and packages. Declare a least-privilege `permissions:` block — `permissions: {contents: read}` at the top of each workflow, widened per job only where a job genuinely writes.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Secret passed as a command-line argument · ×1
  • Secret passed as a command-line argument — 1 CI command(s) pass a credential as a bare command-line argument, where it is visible in the runner's process table to any other process on the host (and to anything that logs a command line): build.yml: dotnet nuget push ./packages/*.nupkg --source 'https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json' --api-key ${{secrets.NUGET_API_KEY}} --skip-duplicate. Pass the credential through the environment instead (an `env:` mapping on the step, read by the tool from its own variable) or on stdin, so it never appears in an argument vector.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory/InMemoryRabbitMqStorage.cs:35 — src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory/InMemoryRabbitMqStorage.cs:35-51 | src/Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus.InMemory/InMemoryServiceBusStorage.cs:35-51
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 6) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 6) src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory/InMemoryRabbitMqMessagingProvider.cs:32 — src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory/InMemoryRabbitMqMessagingProvider.cs:32-44 | src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory/InMemoryRabbitMqMessagingProvider.cs:65-77 | src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqMessagingProvider.cs:114-126 | src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqMessagingProvider.cs:192-204 | src/Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus.InMemory/InMemoryServiceBusMessagingProvider.cs:32-44 | src/Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus.InMemory/InMemoryServiceBusMessagingProvider.cs:65-77
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:49 — src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:49-61 | src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDomainService.cs:84-96
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDataStore.cs:220 — src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDataStore.cs:220-231 | src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDataStore.cs:319-330
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:146 — src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDomainService.cs:146-155 | src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDomainService.cs:188-197
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqMessagingProvider.cs:80 — src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqMessagingProvider.cs:80-88 | src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq/RabbitMqMessagingProvider.cs:156-164
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1
  • Off the main sequence: Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Identity — Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Identity: abstractness 1.00, instability 1.00, distance 1.00 — zone of uselessness — abstract and unstable, so it's likely unused.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. Commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces (anywhere in the repo), or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
Recommendation — 11 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value · misleading comment · ×2
  • misleading comment examples/Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.EntityFrameworkCore/Program.cs:50 — "For debugging" — Delete - the code is not a debug marker but a structural annotation; it reads as benign noise.
  • misleading comment src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory/InMemoryCosmosDataStore.cs:272 — "Storage is shared, so we don't clear it here" — Fix - this contradicts the GC call (clearing) and the 'shared' claim is false; remove or correct one.
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 2 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDomainService.cs, src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/CosmosDataStore.cs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D18 · Solution Shape · Thin analysable surface across projects · ×1
  • Thin analysable surface across projects — 5 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code (e.g. `Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Npgsql` with 26 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 95 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 0.4 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.
D19 · Documentation Quality · The Concepts section begins ('### Concepts') then is cut off in the middle of 'Providers' before covering the outlined topics (read modes, providers, roadmap). · ×1
  • The Concepts section begins ('### Concepts') then is cut off in the middle of 'Providers' before covering the outlined topics (read modes, providers, roadmap). docs/index.md — Ensure the Concepts outline matches what appears: read modes, providers, and the roadmap. The clip truncates mid-Providers, so those sections are present but not shown.
D21 · Naming Consistency · The method `SetupActivity` is duplicated in two different `TestBase` classes (Cosmos and EntityFrameworkCore). While they may do similar things, the duplication suggests a shared base class or interface should be used to enforce consistency and avoid drift. · ×1
  • The method `SetupActivity` is duplicated in two different `TestBase` classes (Cosmos and EntityFrameworkCore). While they may do similar things, the duplication suggests a shared base class or interface should be used to enforce consistency and avoid drift. — Create a shared `TestBase` base class or interface for these test helpers to ensure consistent naming and behavior. (symbols: Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.Tests.TestBase.SetupActivity(), Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Tests.TestBase.SetupActivity())
D21 · Naming Consistency · The interface `ICosmosDataStore` and its implementation `CosmosDataStore` both expose `GetEventDocuments`. However, the interface also exposes `GetAggregateEventDocuments`. The naming `GetEventDocuments` vs `GetAggregateEventDocuments` is slightly inconsistent in scope (all events vs aggregate-specific). · ×1
  • The interface `ICosmosDataStore` and its implementation `CosmosDataStore` both expose `GetEventDocuments`. However, the interface also exposes `GetAggregateEventDocuments`. The naming `GetEventDocuments` vs `GetAggregateEventDocuments` is slightly inconsistent in scope (all events vs aggregate-specific). — Ensure the interface and implementation names are perfectly aligned. If `GetEventDocuments` is the primary query, consider if `GetAggregateEventDocuments` is a necessary distinction or if it can be filtered via parameters. (symbols: Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.CosmosDataStore.GetEventDocuments(...), Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.ICosmosDataStore.GetEventDocuments(...))
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — At 11123 LoC spread over 33 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["Acme.Catalog"]`.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No build provenance · ×1
  • No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI (e.g. slsa-github-generator, actions/attest-build-provenance).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No artifact signing · ×1
  • No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI — sign your released artifacts with whatever your ecosystem ships (a GPG/minisign detached signature — or `cosign sign-blob` — over the release archives, or over a checksum file published alongside them) so consumers can verify what you built.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No SBOM · ×1
  • No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found — produce one with what your ecosystem ships (`syft` (or `anchore/sbom-action` in CI) over the source tree or released image). Publish it as a release asset (`*.spdx.json` / `*.cdx.json`) so consumers can see what they are installing.
Info — 45 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×21
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http 2.3.9 → 2.3.11 available (referenced by Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.EntityFrameworkCore).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Sqlite — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Sqlite 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.EntityFrameworkCore).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Memoria.Examples.EventSourcing.EntityFrameworkCore).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Abstractions 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Memoria.Caching.Memory).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory — Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Memoria.Caching.Memory).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Options — Microsoft.Extensions.Options 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Memoria.Caching.Memory).
  • Outdated: StackExchange.Redis — StackExchange.Redis 2.12.14 → 3.0.17 available (referenced by Memoria.Caching.Redis).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Azure.Cosmos — Microsoft.Azure.Cosmos 3.59.0 → 3.62.0 available (referenced by Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.EntityFrameworkCore — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.EntityFrameworkCore 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Identity).
  • Outdated: Npgsql.EntityFrameworkCore.PostgreSQL — Npgsql.EntityFrameworkCore.PostgreSQL 10.0.0 → 10.0.3 available (referenced by Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Npgsql).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions 2.3.9 → 2.3.11 available (referenced by Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore).
  • Outdated: RabbitMQ.Client — RabbitMQ.Client 6.8.1 → 7.2.1 available (referenced by Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq).
  • Outdated: Azure.Messaging.ServiceBus — Azure.Messaging.ServiceBus 7.20.1 → 7.20.2 available (referenced by Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus).
  • Outdated: FluentAssertions — FluentAssertions 7.2.0 → 8.10.0 available (referenced by Memoria.Caching.Memory.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 18.5.1 → 18.8.1 available (referenced by Memoria.Caching.Memory.Tests).
  • Outdated: NSubstitute — NSubstitute 5.3.0 → 6.0.0 available (referenced by Memoria.Caching.Memory.Tests).
  • Outdated: xunit — xunit 2.9.2 → 2.9.3 available (referenced by Memoria.Caching.Memory.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.TimeProvider.Testing — Microsoft.Extensions.TimeProvider.Testing 10.5.0 → 10.8.0 available (referenced by Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.InMemory — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.InMemory 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Tests).
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×12
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Memoria.Caching.Memory.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Memoria.Caching.Redis.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.InMemory.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus.InMemory.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Memoria.Tests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Memoria.Validation.FluentValidation.Tests references NSubstitute.
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×12
  • XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Caching.Memory src/Memoria.Caching.Memory/Memoria.Caching.Memory.csproj — Memoria.Caching.Memory: 100 % XML-doc coverage (10/10).
  • XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Caching.Redis src/Memoria.Caching.Redis/Memoria.Caching.Redis.csproj — Memoria.Caching.Redis: 100 % XML-doc coverage (12/12).
  • XML-doc coverage: Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos.csproj — Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.Cosmos: 95 % XML-doc coverage (91/96).
  • XML-doc coverage: Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Npgsql src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Npgsql/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Npgsql.csproj — Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.Npgsql: 100 % XML-doc coverage (4/4).
  • XML-doc coverage: Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore src/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore/Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore.csproj — Memoria.EventSourcing.Store.EntityFrameworkCore: 78 % XML-doc coverage (109/139).
  • XML-doc coverage: Memoria.EventSourcing src/Memoria.EventSourcing/Memoria.EventSourcing.csproj — Memoria.EventSourcing: 58 % XML-doc coverage (32/55).
  • XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory.csproj — Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.InMemory: 65 % XML-doc coverage (15/23).
  • XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq src/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq/Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq.csproj — Memoria.Messaging.RabbitMq: 90 % XML-doc coverage (18/20).
  • XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus.InMemory src/Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus.InMemory/Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus.InMemory.csproj — Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus.InMemory: 65 % XML-doc coverage (15/23).
  • XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus src/Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus/Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus.csproj — Memoria.Messaging.ServiceBus: 100 % XML-doc coverage (8/8).
  • XML-doc coverage: Memoria.Validation.FluentValidation src/Memoria.Validation.FluentValidation/Memoria.Validation.FluentValidation.csproj — Memoria.Validation.FluentValidation: 71 % XML-doc coverage (5/7).
  • XML-doc coverage: Memoria src/Memoria/Memoria.csproj — Memoria: 89 % XML-doc coverage (141/158).

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaksgitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrepsemgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .2artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnetdotnet list Memoria.slnx package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json1artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivytrivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrepsemgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.0
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivytrivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosuredisclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scannerosv-scanner: not applicable — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.0
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardeningruntime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.0
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardeningruntime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.0
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardeningruntime-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 019faf5c-6fea-74b7-8304-d5d9afaeab7a · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Downloadable artifacts

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

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