EcsNode — Watchdog Audit

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.

m969/EcsNode carries serious gaps (37%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (20%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Code Health (40%) is the next concern — changes there are slower and more error-prone.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through… (Test Coverage); test runner (vitest / jest / playwright) and eslint and `tsc… (Tooling).

For scale: Large (~153,398 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~1.8 person-years (~1–4 engineers). Approximate, ±~30%.

Code Health 40% Weak · gated by D17, R2 Maturity 65% Adequate Readiness 20% ⚠ Critical · gated by R4, R6, P1, P3 Security 84% Strong

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.

Readiness 20% · 50% weightCode Health 40% · 27% weightMaturity 65% · 15% weightSecurity 84% · 8% weight

Raise Readiness 20 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 37 → ~55.

Code composition — where the lines go

Business logic 18%Plumbing 70%Tests 12%

New since the last scan (17+)

17 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-29) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D4 · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs
D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NativeSocket.cs
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetSerializer.cs
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetDataWriter.cs
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetSerializer.cs
D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/InternalPackets.cs
D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetPacketProcessor.cs
D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/CRC32C.cs
D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/CRC32C.cs
D30 · High CVE: MessagePack 3.1.4
R10 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_CSharp.js
R10 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_CSharp.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_TS.js
R4 · Test Coverage

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 — €87,000–€440,000

Cost to rebuild	€87,000–€440,000 (0.9–2.7 person-years (1,447–4,589 h), ~1–4 engineers)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.7× (at 37% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Large · 69% boilerplate · 10% straight-line · 21% branching logic
Dead frontend code	~355 LoC unreachable (4 file(s)) — that slice of this estimate buys code with zero runtime value; deleting it is the cheapest win in this report (the R7 card lists every file)

This codebase represents roughly ~1.8 person-years of build effort (about ~€260,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 20% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source (the solution did not build in-analyzer). 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.

Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

+21.2 pts · Medium effort · CI/CD gates

Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).

+21.2 pts · Medium effort · Test Coverage

Add a test runner (vitest / jest / playwright) and eslint and `tsc --noEmit` as package.json scripts and run them in CI.

+21.2 pts · Medium effort · Tooling

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk

This is a Large asset (~1.8 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 20%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Large, ~1.8 person-years rebuild (153,398 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 20%

→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

Roadmap

First, establish a continuous integration pipeline that builds the code and runs the full test suite on every push or pull request. Next, expand test coverage to include all production modules and configure tooling such as a test runner, linter, and type checker to run automatically in CI. Then, implement versioning in the build manifest to ensure all releases are traceable. Finally, address the explicit debt by resolving the 38 instances of commented-out code, starting with the files containing the most occurrences.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.	+21.2 pts	Medium	CI/CD gates
Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).	+21.2 pts	Medium	Test Coverage
Add a test runner (vitest / jest / playwright) and eslint and `tsc --noEmit` as package.json scripts and run them in CI.	+21.2 pts	Medium	Tooling
Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version>, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, or a VERSION file) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.	+17.7 pts	Medium	Release Hygiene
Resolve the 38 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with UintMessageSystem.cs (12), NetworkMessageHandler.cs (7), NetworkMessage.cs (7).	+10.9 pts	Medium	Explicit Debt
Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.	+10.9 pts	Medium	Cyclomatic Complexity
Resolve the 4 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with LiteNetLib.csproj (4).	+5.4 pts	Low	Explicit Debt
Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.	+10.1 pts	Medium	Type Safety

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 28 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 57% mixed · 43% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/LiteNetLib.csproj	5.5	Mixed	Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
UnityApp/Assets/GameResources.ThirdParty/Kevin Iglesias/Characters/Humanoid Giant/Textures/Giant01/Texture01/Recolor/Giant01_Texture01-EditableColor.psd	5.8	Mixed	Secrets (history): Secret: facebook-page-access-token
Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/UintMessageSystem.cs	6.4	Mixed	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/NetworkMessageHandler.cs	6.4	Mixed	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/NetworkMessage.cs	6.4	Mixed	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/MessageSystem.cs	6.5	Mixed	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LibSample/Program.cs	6.6	Mixed	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs	7.1	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (19 lines × 2)
UnityApp/Assets/GameResources.ThirdParty/Kevin Iglesias/Characters/Humanoid Giant/Textures/Giant01/Texture02/Recolor/Giant01_Texture02-EditableColor.psd	7.2	Mixed	Secrets (history): Secret: facebook-page-access-token
LubanTables/Tools/Luban/Luban.MsgPack.deps.json	7.2	Mixed	OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: [GHSA redacted]
LubanTables/Tools/Luban/Luban.Bson.deps.json	7.2	Mixed	OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: High vulnerability: [GHSA redacted]
Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/NeterNetEventListener.cs	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.system.neter/NeterSystem.cs	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetUtils.cs	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: BareSuppressMessage
Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetSerializer.cs	7.8	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)
Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/CRC32C.cs	7.8	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (5 lines × 3)
Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NatPunchModule.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: HackComment
Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetManager.Socket.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: HackComment
Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LibSample/AesEncryptLayer.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: Dead code: TransformBlocks
Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LibSample/GithubSample.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: Dead code: GithubSample

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. 38 of 40 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.5 — 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 — 40 dimensions across the health lenses

D4D5D9D10D12D13D14D17D18D20D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D33D34D35D38AX10AX3AX4AX8M1M2M3M4P1P3P6R1R10R2R3R4R6R7R9

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 72 of 94 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
jscpd	Code duplication	—	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.302	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.302	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019fc7c1-34e6-7bde-b94e-5d8bffd24bb8.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.

D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
Solution could not be loaded — run is Degraded — The C# workspace did not read this repository's production source, so every compiler-dependent dimension ran on estimated input. Treat the grade as indicative only; diagnostics.md records the exact cause.

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.

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.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
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.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
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.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D20, D21, 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

D4 · Code Duplication10.0 / 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

14 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×4Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:230

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetDataWriter.cs:276

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×2Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/InternalPackets.cs:59

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2)Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetManager.cs:1579

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2)Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:654

+ 4 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling6.9 / 10Adequate✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

What to do

Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Coupling in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

37 test methods: 37 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

Tests co-located / outside the solution

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality9.6 / 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 1 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 37 tests.

No assertions: TestAchieveItemInitModules.Unity/com.module.achieve/system.module-test/AchieveModuleTests.cs:56

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 6 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

45 deducted debt markers + 6 dead symbols across 0 LoC (7.9/KLoC) → score 0.0.

NoWarnInCsproj · ×4Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/LiteNetLib.csproj:13

CommentedOutCode · ×38Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LibSample/Program.cs:33

Dead code: TransformBlocks · ×6Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LibSample/AesEncryptLayer.cs:90

HackComment · ×2Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NatPunchModule.cs:227

BareSuppressMessageModules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetUtils.cs:203

What to do

Resolve the 38 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with UintMessageSystem.cs (12), NetworkMessageHandler.cs (7), NetworkMessage.cs (7). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (38 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with LiteNetLib.csproj (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 6 Dead code finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Program.cs (2), AesEncryptLayer.cs, GithubSample.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Explicit Debt in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D18 · Solution Shape10.0 / 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 projects, 80 source files, 12435 hand-written lines of code (0 production / 12435 test), 0 inter-project edges.

Monorepo: only 1 of 14 solutions was scored

Analyzed solution does not cover the bulk of the repository

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Critical / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D24 · Comment Value / 10Strong◐ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Strong / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

26 valuable / 1 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

redundant commentModules.Unity/com.module.neter/LibSample/BroadcastTest.cs:112

What to do

Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with BroadcastTest.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 of 1 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

66 % of calls cross a namespace and 3 % go through an interface, but 81 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

3 finding(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 0 medium, 0 low.

Secret: facebook-page-access-token · ×3UnityApp/Assets/GameResources.ThirdParty/Kevin Iglesias/Characters/Humanoid Giant/Textures/Giant01/Texture01/Recolor/Giant01_Texture01-EditableColor.psd:733detected by gitleaks finding

What to do

Resolve the 3 Secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with Giant01_Texture01-EditableColor.psd (2), Giant01_Texture02-EditableColor.psd. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities6.4 / 10Adequate✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

12 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 9 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: MessagePack 3.1.4 · ×3detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

Medium CVE: MessagePack 3.1.4 · ×9detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

Resolve the 9 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether JavaScript/npm dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs) — the npm ecosystem's biggest risk.

Method: JS/npm CVE scan via trivy fs --scanners vuln over JS manifests (package.json/yarn.lock/pnpm-lock/bun.lockb); 0-10 tight normalizer. NotApplicable without JS manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d33_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs) per the OSV database — read natively from whatever lockfile the repository ships (Cargo, npm, Go, Python, Maven, RubyGems, …). D33 and D30 add ecosystem-specific scanners on top for npm and .NET.

Method: Multi-ecosystem dependency-CVE scan via osv-scanner --recursive (queries the osv.dev database + parses lockfiles natively across ecosystems: npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven/Gradle pom.xml/gradle.lockfile, PyPI requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock, Composer composer.lock, RubyGems Gemfile.lock, Hex mix.lock, pub pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer (8.0). NotApplicable only when the repo declares no supported non-.NET dependency lockfile (a NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain); coverage needs a resolved lockfile. Additive to D33 (trivy fs); exhaustive + deterministic, DB kept fresh.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

High CVE: [GHSA redacted]LubanTables/Tools/Luban/Luban.MsgPack.deps.jsondetected by osv-scanner finding

High vulnerability: [GHSA redacted]LubanTables/Tools/Luban/Luban.Bson.deps.jsondetected by osv-scanner finding

What to do

Resolve the 1 High CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with Luban.MsgPack.deps.json. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 High vulnerability finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with Luban.Bson.deps.json. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d38_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

What to do

Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
Tests aren't grouped in a dedicated test folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.

What to do

Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
Group tests in the folder your build system expects (tests/, test/, spec/, or your module's test source set) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy9.0 / 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.

What to do

Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build.

What to do

Run what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

What to do

Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version>, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, or a VERSION file) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R1 · Type Safety5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.

Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.

3 typed · 3 plain JS — the untyped files are UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_CSharp.js, UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_TS.js, UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/main.js.

What to do

Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R10 · Code Duplication9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Copy-pasted token-identical blocks across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386).

Method: Copy-pasted token-identical blocks across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Deterministic.

UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_CSharp.js:46 · UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_CSharp.ts:47 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — GenCode_CSharp.js:46
UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_TS.js:33 · UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_TS.ts:32 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — GenCode_TS.js:33
UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_TS.js:93 · UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_TS.ts:98 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — GenCode_TS.js:93
UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_TS.js:76 · UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_TS.ts:80 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — GenCode_TS.js:76
UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_CSharp.js:20 · UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_CSharp.ts:22 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — GenCode_CSharp.js:20
UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_CSharp.js:1 · UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_TS.js:1 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — GenCode_CSharp.js:1
UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_CSharp.ts:95 · UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_TS.ts:106 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — GenCode_CSharp.ts:95
UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_TS.js:8 · UnityApp/UIProject/plugins/export-ts/GenCode_TS.ts:6 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — GenCode_TS.js:8

What to do

Extract the duplicated blocks into shared functions/components.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.

Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.

Branch-heavy code is where defects cluster — extract decisions into smaller functions. (×4) — GenCode_TS.js:6, GenCode_TS.ts:4, GenCode_CSharp.js:6, …

What to do

Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R3 · Large Files10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.

Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R4 · Test Coverage0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Static test reachability (D-386): the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything.

Method: Static test reachability: the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything. Deterministic.

0% of 6 production file(s) reachable from 0 test file(s) via the import graph

What to do

Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).

Do you agree with this assessment?

R6 · Tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each package.json script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.

Method: package.json scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.

test ✗ · lint ✗ · typecheck ✗

What to do

Add a test runner (vitest / jest / playwright) and eslint and `tsc --noEmit` as package.json scripts and run them in CI.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R7 · Dead Code9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).

Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.

Unreachable from the 1 application, 3 tooling and 0 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on your build/type-check — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
no import path from any entry point (1 application, 3 tooling, 0 test roots considered) (×4) — GenCode_TS.ts, GenCode_TS.js, GenCode_CSharp.js, …

What to do

Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R9 · Circular Imports10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.

Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	40%	Weak — gated by D17, R2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	65%	Adequate	Acceptable, with room to improve.
Readiness	20%	Critical — gated by R4, R6, P1, P3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	84%	Strong	Strongest area.

Not included — 66 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.cs, .ts) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it, so cyclomatic complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — No tests discovered
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — complexity unreadable for .cs — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
D2 Cognitive Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.cs, .ts) had no cognitive complexity computed for it, so cognitive complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 153607 LoC across a single project the codebase is trivially small despite the absence of declared bounded contexts.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D3 God Classes — Most of this repository's production source (.cs, .ts) was not read by god-class detection, so class size was not assessed for the languages that are the product — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's class size. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Data compliance (PII/GDPR) was not assessed in this scan — no ruleset is currently available for it. This says nothing about how this repository handles personal data, in either direction.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — No production classes were analyzable, so cohesion (LCOM4) was not measured (the solution likely failed to load or has no production code).
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
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 measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
R5 Dependency Freshness — no package-lock.json — dependency freshness not measured (would require an npm lockfile); JS/npm CVEs are scored in D33 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities)
R8 Dependency Hygiene — Not measured — no package.json declares any dependency, so there is nothing to check imports against (imports may resolve through a host runtime rather than node).
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository

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 — 12 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×4

NoWarnInCsproj Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/LiteNetLib.csproj:13 — 1701 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/LiteNetLib.csproj:13 — 1702 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/LiteNetLib.csproj:13 — 1705 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/LiteNetLib.csproj:13 — 1591 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.

D28 · Secrets (history) · Secret · ×3

Secret: facebook-page-access-token UnityApp/Assets/GameResources.ThirdParty/Kevin Iglesias/Characters/Humanoid Giant/Textures/Giant01/Texture01/Recolor/Giant01_Texture01-EditableColor.psd:733 — matched rule 'facebook-page-access-token'
Secret: facebook-page-access-token UnityApp/Assets/GameResources.ThirdParty/Kevin Iglesias/Characters/Humanoid Giant/Textures/Giant01/Texture02/Recolor/Giant01_Texture02-EditableColor.psd:733 — matched rule 'facebook-page-access-token'
Secret: facebook-page-access-token UnityApp/Assets/GameResources.ThirdParty/Kevin Iglesias/Characters/Humanoid Giant/Textures/Giant01/Texture01/Recolor/Giant01_Texture01-EditableColor.psd:23507 — matched rule 'facebook-page-access-token'

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×3

High CVE: MessagePack 3.1.4 — MessagePack 3.1.4 (direct) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.5.301
High CVE: MessagePack 3.1.4 — MessagePack 3.1.4 (direct) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: MessagePack 3.1.4 — MessagePack 3.1.4 (direct) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.5.301

D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×1

High CVE: [GHSA redacted] LubanTables/Tools/Luban/Luban.MsgPack.deps.json — MessagePack 2.5.192: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.5.301 (in 2 dependency files: LubanTables/Tools/Luban/Luban.MsgPack.deps.json, LubanTables/Tools/Luban/Luban.deps.json) This one row stands for the 11 advisories this scan raises against MessagePack 2.5.192: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].

D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · High vulnerability · ×1

High vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] LubanTables/Tools/Luban/Luban.Bson.deps.json — Scriban 5.12.0: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 7.2.2. This is 1 of 7 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against Scriban 5.12.0, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 7.2.2 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 7.2.2 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 23 dependency files) This one row stands for the 7 advisories this scan raises against Scriban 5.12.0: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].

Warning — 76 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×38

CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LibSample/Program.cs:33 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/MessageSystem.cs:1 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/NetworkMessageHandler.cs:39 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/NetworkMessageHandler.cs:65 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/NetworkMessageHandler.cs:74 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/NetworkMessageHandler.cs:82 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/UintMessageSystem.cs:74 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/UintMessageSystem.cs:216 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LibSample/Program.cs:40 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/MessageSystem.cs:52 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/MessageSystem.cs:74 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/MessageSystem.cs:84 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/NetworkMessage.cs:90 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/NetworkMessage.cs:119 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/NetworkMessage.cs:125 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/NetworkMessage.cs:151 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/NetworkMessage.cs:156 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/NetworkMessage.cs:204 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/NetworkMessageHandler.cs:1 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/UintMessageSystem.cs:23 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/UintMessageSystem.cs:81 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/UintMessageSystem.cs:98 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/UintMessageSystem.cs:115 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/UintMessageSystem.cs:134 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.model.neter/Messages/UintMessageSystem.cs:163 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
+ 13 more in this group — see findings.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×9

Medium CVE: MessagePack 3.1.4 — MessagePack 3.1.4 (direct) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.5.301
Medium CVE: MessagePack 3.1.4 — MessagePack 3.1.4 (direct) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.5.301
Medium CVE: MessagePack 3.1.4 — MessagePack 3.1.4 (direct) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.5.301
Medium CVE: MessagePack 3.1.4 — MessagePack 3.1.4 (direct) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.5.301
Medium CVE: MessagePack 3.1.4 — MessagePack 3.1.4 (direct) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.5.301
Medium CVE: MessagePack 3.1.4 — MessagePack 3.1.4 (direct) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.5.301
Medium CVE: MessagePack 3.1.4 — MessagePack 3.1.4 (direct) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.5.301
Medium CVE: MessagePack 3.1.4 — MessagePack 3.1.4 (direct) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.5.301
Medium CVE: MessagePack 3.1.4 — MessagePack 3.1.4 (direct) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.5.301

D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×6

Dead code: TransformBlocks Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LibSample/AesEncryptLayer.cs:90 — Method TransformBlocks — no references found in solution.
Dead code: GithubSample Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LibSample/GithubSample.cs:8 — NamedType GithubSample — no references found in solution.
Dead code: PrintInvalidCommand Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LibSample/Program.cs:67 — Method PrintInvalidCommand — no references found in solution.
Dead code: AppendFullHelpMenu Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LibSample/Program.cs:88 — Method AppendFullHelpMenu — no references found in solution.
Dead code: PrintInterfaceInfos Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetUtils.cs:159 — Method PrintInterfaceInfos — no references found in solution.
Dead code: ValidateRequest Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NtpPacket.cs:296 — Method ValidateRequest — no references found in solution.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:230 — Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:230-238 | Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:274-282 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:682 — Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:682-690 | Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:820-828 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:682` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:700 — Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:700-708 | Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:831-839 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:700` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetSerializer.cs:232 — Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetSerializer.cs:232-240 | Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetSerializer.cs:295-303 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetSerializer.cs:232` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D17 · Explicit Debt · HackComment · ×2

HackComment Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NatPunchModule.cs:227 — // hack for some routers — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetManager.Socket.cs:498 — //hack for iOS (Unity3D) — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetDataWriter.cs:276 — Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetDataWriter.cs:276-283 | Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetDataWriter.cs:290-297 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetDataWriter.cs:276` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetSerializer.cs:175 — Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetSerializer.cs:175-182 | Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetSerializer.cs:232-239 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetSerializer.cs:175` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/InternalPackets.cs:59 — Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/InternalPackets.cs:59-64 | Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/InternalPackets.cs:76-81 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetPacketProcessor.cs:160 — Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetPacketProcessor.cs:160-165 | Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetPacketProcessor.cs:181-186 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/NetPacketProcessor.cs:160` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×1

No assertions: TestAchieveItemInit Modules.Unity/com.module.achieve/system.module-test/AchieveModuleTests.cs:56 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.

D16 · Bus Factor · single-maintainer · ×1

single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk (1 author(s) across 87 commit(s) sampled).

D17 · Explicit Debt · BareSuppressMessage · ×1

BareSuppressMessage Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetUtils.cs:203 — SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.

D18 · Solution Shape · Monorepo · ×1

Monorepo: only 1 of 14 solutions was scored — This repository contains 14 .NET solutions, but a scan analyzes ONE. Every score, lens, and finding here reflects only `Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.module.neter.sln` — the other 13 (`Modules.Unity/com.module.achieve/AchieveModule.sln`, `Modules.Unity/com.module.actor-state/com.module.actor-state.sln`, `Modules.Unity/com.module.attack/com.module.attack.sln`, `Modules.Unity/com.module.battle-base/com.module.battle-base.sln`, `Modules.Unity/com.module.building/Building.sln`, `Modules.Unity/com.module.chase/com.module.chase.sln`, +7 more) were not analyzed and are not represented in the headline. To cover them, scan each solution as its own target and group them in a Solution or Product for a portfolio roll-up. If a secondary solution is an archived or vendored tree, declare it — `.gitattributes` (`path/** linguist-vendored`) or `.editorconfig` (`[path/**] generated_code = true`) — to exclude it from discovery the same way generated code is.

D18 · Solution Shape · Analyzed solution does not cover the bulk of the repository · ×1

Analyzed solution does not cover the bulk of the repository — The scored solution `Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.module.neter.sln` is not representative of this repository — it references only 68 of 784 discovered C# files (9 %). Lenses that need the product's source (domain modelling, event-driven, event sourcing) abstain because the aggregates, EF configs, and domain events under the product tree were not loaded. Point the scan at the product solution (or scan its directory directly) so the whole codebase is analyzed, not a build-tooling sub-solution.

D19 · Documentation Quality · LLM evaluation failed · ×1

LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.findings[0].suggestion | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 1068.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetManager.cs:1579 — Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetManager.cs:1579-1602 | Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetManager.cs:1620-1639 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetManager.cs:1579` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:654 — Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:654-672 | Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:791-809 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:654` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:409 — Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:409-423 | Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:428-442 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NetPeer.cs:409` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NativeSocket.cs:20 — Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NativeSocket.cs:20-30 | Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NativeSocket.cs:43-53 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/NativeSocket.cs:20` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/CRC32C.cs:122 — Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/CRC32C.cs:122-126 | Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/CRC32C.cs:127-131 | Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/CRC32C.cs:132-136 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/CRC32C.cs:69 — Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/CRC32C.cs:69-73 | Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/CRC32C.cs:101-105 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LiteNetLib/Utils/CRC32C.cs:69` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the test suite built and its tests PASSED, but the run produced no coverage data — `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` found no data collector, which is what a test project with no `coverlet.collector` PackageReference does. Nothing is wrong with the suite or the build; there is simply no coverage instrumentation wired up. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.

Recommendation — 4 finding(s)

D11 · Test Reliability · No tests discovered · ×1

No tests discovered — Test reliability not scored — the test tier(s) built and ran but no tests were discovered, so reliability couldn't be exercised.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · complexity unreadable for .cs · ×1

complexity unreadable for .cs — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured — A hotspot is churn × complexity. Churn was measured (0 line(s) across the 90-day window), but no complexity could be computed for .cs, which is most of this repository's production code — so every churned file would score as complexity 0 and the hotspot list would be empty no matter how tangled the code is. Not scored — this is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.

D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1

redundant comment Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/LibSample/BroadcastTest.cs:112 — "Server" — delete - the serverListener label restates this

Info — 2 finding(s)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1

No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

D9 · Test Distribution · Tests co-located / outside the solution · ×1

Tests co-located / outside the solution — 37 test method(s) were found on disk (co-located in feature projects, or outside the analyzed solution) rather than in dedicated test projects, so the unit/integration/E2E pyramid can't be classified — they're counted as one undifferentiated suite.

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.

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .	3	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .	0	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list Modules.Unity/com.module.neter/com.module.neter.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	12	artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — Data compliance (PII/GDPR) was not assessed in this scan — no ruleset is currently available for it. This says nothing about how this repository handles personal data, in either direction.	0	—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	0	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	2	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—

Run 019fc7c1-34e6-7bde-b94e-5d8bffd24bb8 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

M969/EcsNode

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

At a glance — Code Health · 40% · Weak · gated by D17, R2

At a glance — Architecture · — · —

At a glance — Maturity · 65% · Adequate

At a glance — Readiness · 20% · Critical · gated by R4, R6, P1, P3

At a glance — Security · 84% · Strong

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts