Executive summary
Band capped at Weak: the weakest category (Dependencies, 11%) reads Critical — the cover never out-promises the category table.
Preview (pre-1.0). This repo hasn't declared a stable release, so it's judged against a relaxed, pre-production bar.
This system presents a fragile operational standing with an overall health score of 53%. While the underlying code is clean and well-structured, the system lacks the operational safeguards necessary for reliable, secure delivery. For leadership, this means the asset is small and cheap to replace, but its current state exposes the business to unnecessary operational risk and potential security regressions that could disrupt service or data integrity.
The value at stake is modest, comprising roughly 10,600 lines of production code. Rebuilding this system from scratch would require approximately 0.2 person-years, costing around €24,000. This low rebuild cost indicates that the business is not locked into a complex, expensive legacy monolith. However, the current composition suggests a high degree of custom logic rather than boilerplate, meaning the existing code holds specific business value that should be preserved through careful modernization rather than wholesale replacement.
The primary risk lies in operational readiness. With a readiness score of 40%, the system is difficult to monitor and diagnose in production. Without structured logging across all modules, incidents will be harder to resolve, leading to longer outages and higher support costs. This gap directly impacts reliability and customer trust, as teams cannot quickly identify the root cause of failures when they occur.
A secondary concern is security exposure. Although the code health is excellent, the security posture is only moderate. The absence of automated security checks in the delivery pipeline allows vulnerabilities to slip into production. This creates a risk of data breaches or compliance violations, which can carry significant financial and reputational costs far exceeding the cost of the software itself.
On the positive side, the code is highly maintainable and architecturally sound. The high scores in code health and architecture indicate that changes are less likely to cause unintended side effects, and new engineers can understand the logic quickly. This foundation makes future improvements more efficient and less risky.
To maximize leverage, focus first on integrating automated security scanning into the continuous integration pipeline. This low-effort change prevents future vulnerabilities from entering the system. Simultaneously, extend structured logging to all modules to improve observability. These steps address the most critical gaps with minimal investment, stabilizing the system for continued business value.
Raise Readiness 40 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 53 → ~63.
New since the last scan (6+)
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €7,800–€39,000
| Cost to rebuild | €7,800–€39,000 |
|---|---|
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 53% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€24,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 40% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Architecture — module dependency graph
Architecture — module dependency matrix
| depends on → | 1 Gust | 2 Gust.DAG | 3 Gust.DAG.Run | 4 Gust.DAG.Runner | 5 Gust.DAG.Runtime | 6 Gust.Run | 7 GustPy | 8 GustWeb.MCP | 9 (global) | 10 Gust.DAG.Loader | 11 Gust.DAG.Logger | 12 Gust.DAG.Parser | 13 Gust.DAG.Run.Trigger | 14 Gust.DAG.Runner.RunGateway | 15 Gust.DAG.RunnerSupervisor | 16 Gust.DAG.Runtime.Adapters | 17 Gust.DAG.StageCoordinator | 18 Gust.DAG.TaskDelayer | 19 Gust.DAG.TaskExpander | 20 Gust.DAG.TaskRunnerSupervisor | 21 Gust.DAG.TaskWaiter | 22 Gust.DAG.TaskWorker.Adapters | 23 Gust.DAG.Terminator | 24 Gust.DBLocker | 25 Gust.FileMonitor | 26 Gust.PGNotifier | 27 Gust.Run.Claim | 28 GustPy.Executor | 29 GustPy.Runtime | 30 GustPy.TaskMessenger | 31 GustPy.TaskWorker | 32 GustShell.Runtime | 33 GustShell.TaskWorker | 34 GustWeb.MCP.Resources | 35 GustWeb.MCP.Tools | 36 Gust.DAG.Parser.Adapters | 37 GustPy.Parser | 38 GustShell.Parser | 39 GustWeb | 40 GustWeb.DagLive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Gust | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 Gust.DAG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 Gust.DAG.Run | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 Gust.DAG.Runner | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 Gust.DAG.Runtime | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 Gust.Run | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 GustPy | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 GustWeb.MCP | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 (global) | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 Gust.DAG.Loader | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 Gust.DAG.Logger | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 Gust.DAG.Parser | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 Gust.DAG.Run.Trigger | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 Gust.DAG.Runner.RunGateway | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 Gust.DAG.RunnerSupervisor | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 Gust.DAG.Runtime.Adapters | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 Gust.DAG.StageCoordinator | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 Gust.DAG.TaskDelayer | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 Gust.DAG.TaskExpander | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 Gust.DAG.TaskRunnerSupervisor | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 Gust.DAG.TaskWaiter | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 Gust.DAG.TaskWorker.Adapters | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 Gust.DAG.Terminator | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 Gust.DBLocker | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 Gust.FileMonitor | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 Gust.PGNotifier | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27 Gust.Run.Claim | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28 GustPy.Executor | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 29 GustPy.Runtime | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30 GustPy.TaskMessenger | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31 GustPy.TaskWorker | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 32 GustShell.Runtime | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 33 GustShell.TaskWorker | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 34 GustWeb.MCP.Resources | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 35 GustWeb.MCP.Tools | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 36 Gust.DAG.Parser.Adapters | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 37 GustPy.Parser | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 38 GustShell.Parser | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 39 GustWeb | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 40 GustWeb.DagLive | 2 |
9→1 (global) depends on Gust✕
- Type pairs
- 5 distinct (type in (global) → type in Gust) references.
- Which types
ChildResumesParent→Gust.DSLDailyStockDecider→Gust.DSLFusionPrompt→Gust.DSLHelloWorld→Gust.DSLParentWaitsForChild→Gust.DSL
- Direction
- (global) uses Gust. Changing Gust can break (global), not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
10→2 Gust.DAG.Loader depends on Gust.DAG✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.DAG.Loader → type in Gust.DAG) reference.
- Which types
Gust.DAG.Loader.Worker→Gust.DAG.Loader
- Direction
- Gust.DAG.Loader uses Gust.DAG. Changing Gust.DAG can break Gust.DAG.Loader, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
11→2 Gust.DAG.Logger depends on Gust.DAG✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.DAG.Logger → type in Gust.DAG) reference.
- Which types
Gust.DAG.Logger.Database→Gust.DAG.Logger
- Direction
- Gust.DAG.Logger uses Gust.DAG. Changing Gust.DAG can break Gust.DAG.Logger, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
12→2 Gust.DAG.Parser depends on Gust.DAG✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.DAG.Parser → type in Gust.DAG) reference.
- Which types
Gust.DAG.Parser.File→Gust.DAG.Parser
- Direction
- Gust.DAG.Parser uses Gust.DAG. Changing Gust.DAG can break Gust.DAG.Parser, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
13→3 Gust.DAG.Run.Trigger depends on Gust.DAG.Run✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.DAG.Run.Trigger → type in Gust.DAG.Run) reference.
- Which types
Gust.DAG.Run.Trigger.Requeue→Gust.DAG.Run.Trigger
- Direction
- Gust.DAG.Run.Trigger uses Gust.DAG.Run. Changing Gust.DAG.Run can break Gust.DAG.Run.Trigger, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
14→4 Gust.DAG.Runner.RunGateway depends on Gust.DAG.Runner✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.DAG.Runner.RunGateway → type in Gust.DAG.Runner) reference.
- Which types
Gust.DAG.Runner.RunGateway.Default→Gust.DAG.Runner.RunGateway
- Direction
- Gust.DAG.Runner.RunGateway uses Gust.DAG.Runner. Changing Gust.DAG.Runner can break Gust.DAG.Runner.RunGateway, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
15→2 Gust.DAG.RunnerSupervisor depends on Gust.DAG✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.DAG.RunnerSupervisor → type in Gust.DAG) reference.
- Which types
Gust.DAG.RunnerSupervisor.DynamicSupervisor→Gust.DAG.RunnerSupervisor
- Direction
- Gust.DAG.RunnerSupervisor uses Gust.DAG. Changing Gust.DAG can break Gust.DAG.RunnerSupervisor, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
16→5 Gust.DAG.Runtime.Adapters depends on Gust.DAG.Runtime✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.DAG.Runtime.Adapters → type in Gust.DAG.Runtime) reference.
- Which types
Gust.DAG.Runtime.Adapters.Elixir→Gust.DAG.Runtime.Adapter
- Direction
- Gust.DAG.Runtime.Adapters uses Gust.DAG.Runtime. Changing Gust.DAG.Runtime can break Gust.DAG.Runtime.Adapters, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
17→2 Gust.DAG.StageCoordinator depends on Gust.DAG✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.DAG.StageCoordinator → type in Gust.DAG) reference.
- Which types
Gust.DAG.StageCoordinator.RetryingTask→Gust.DAG.StageCoordinator
- Direction
- Gust.DAG.StageCoordinator uses Gust.DAG. Changing Gust.DAG can break Gust.DAG.StageCoordinator, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
18→2 Gust.DAG.TaskDelayer depends on Gust.DAG✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.DAG.TaskDelayer → type in Gust.DAG) reference.
- Which types
Gust.DAG.TaskDelayer.Calculator→Gust.DAG.TaskDelayer
- Direction
- Gust.DAG.TaskDelayer uses Gust.DAG. Changing Gust.DAG can break Gust.DAG.TaskDelayer, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
19→2 Gust.DAG.TaskExpander depends on Gust.DAG✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.DAG.TaskExpander → type in Gust.DAG) reference.
- Which types
Gust.DAG.TaskExpander.MapOver→Gust.DAG.TaskExpander
- Direction
- Gust.DAG.TaskExpander uses Gust.DAG. Changing Gust.DAG can break Gust.DAG.TaskExpander, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
20→2 Gust.DAG.TaskRunnerSupervisor depends on Gust.DAG✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.DAG.TaskRunnerSupervisor → type in Gust.DAG) reference.
- Which types
Gust.DAG.TaskRunnerSupervisor.DynamicSupervisor→Gust.DAG.TaskRunnerSupervisor
- Direction
- Gust.DAG.TaskRunnerSupervisor uses Gust.DAG. Changing Gust.DAG can break Gust.DAG.TaskRunnerSupervisor, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
21→2 Gust.DAG.TaskWaiter depends on Gust.DAG✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.DAG.TaskWaiter → type in Gust.DAG) reference.
- Which types
Gust.DAG.TaskWaiter.Repo→Gust.DAG.TaskWaiter
- Direction
- Gust.DAG.TaskWaiter uses Gust.DAG. Changing Gust.DAG can break Gust.DAG.TaskWaiter, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
22→2 Gust.DAG.TaskWorker.Adapters depends on Gust.DAG✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.DAG.TaskWorker.Adapters → type in Gust.DAG) reference.
- Which types
Gust.DAG.TaskWorker.Adapters.Elixir→Gust.DAG.TaskWorker
- Direction
- Gust.DAG.TaskWorker.Adapters uses Gust.DAG. Changing Gust.DAG can break Gust.DAG.TaskWorker.Adapters, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
23→2 Gust.DAG.Terminator depends on Gust.DAG✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.DAG.Terminator → type in Gust.DAG) reference.
- Which types
Gust.DAG.Terminator.Gateway→Gust.DAG.Terminator
- Direction
- Gust.DAG.Terminator uses Gust.DAG. Changing Gust.DAG can break Gust.DAG.Terminator, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
24→1 Gust.DBLocker depends on Gust✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.DBLocker → type in Gust) reference.
- Which types
Gust.DBLocker.Postgres→Gust.DBLocker
- Direction
- Gust.DBLocker uses Gust. Changing Gust can break Gust.DBLocker, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
25→1 Gust.FileMonitor depends on Gust✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.FileMonitor → type in Gust) reference.
- Which types
Gust.FileMonitor.SystemFs→Gust.FileMonitor
- Direction
- Gust.FileMonitor uses Gust. Changing Gust can break Gust.FileMonitor, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
26→1 Gust.PGNotifier depends on Gust✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.PGNotifier → type in Gust) reference.
- Which types
Gust.PGNotifier.Postgrex→Gust.PGNotifier
- Direction
- Gust.PGNotifier uses Gust. Changing Gust can break Gust.PGNotifier, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
26→6 Gust.PGNotifier depends on Gust.Run✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.PGNotifier → type in Gust.Run) reference.
- Which types
Gust.PGNotifier.Worker→Gust.Run.Dispatcher
- Direction
- Gust.PGNotifier uses Gust.Run. Changing Gust.Run can break Gust.PGNotifier, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
27→6 Gust.Run.Claim depends on Gust.Run✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.Run.Claim → type in Gust.Run) reference.
- Which types
Gust.Run.Claim.Repo→Gust.Run.Claim
- Direction
- Gust.Run.Claim uses Gust.Run. Changing Gust.Run can break Gust.Run.Claim, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
28→7 GustPy.Executor depends on GustPy✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in GustPy.Executor → type in GustPy) reference.
- Which types
GustPy.Executor.UV→GustPy.Executor
- Direction
- GustPy.Executor uses GustPy. Changing GustPy can break GustPy.Executor, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
29→5 GustPy.Runtime depends on Gust.DAG.Runtime✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in GustPy.Runtime → type in Gust.DAG.Runtime) reference.
- Which types
GustPy.Runtime.Adapter→Gust.DAG.Runtime.Adapter
- Direction
- GustPy.Runtime uses Gust.DAG.Runtime. Changing Gust.DAG.Runtime can break GustPy.Runtime, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
30→7 GustPy.TaskMessenger depends on GustPy✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in GustPy.TaskMessenger → type in GustPy) reference.
- Which types
GustPy.TaskMessenger.JSON→GustPy.TaskMessenger
- Direction
- GustPy.TaskMessenger uses GustPy. Changing GustPy can break GustPy.TaskMessenger, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
31→2 GustPy.TaskWorker depends on Gust.DAG✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in GustPy.TaskWorker → type in Gust.DAG) reference.
- Which types
GustPy.TaskWorker.Adapter→Gust.DAG.TaskWorker
- Direction
- GustPy.TaskWorker uses Gust.DAG. Changing Gust.DAG can break GustPy.TaskWorker, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
32→5 GustShell.Runtime depends on Gust.DAG.Runtime✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in GustShell.Runtime → type in Gust.DAG.Runtime) reference.
- Which types
GustShell.Runtime.Adapter→Gust.DAG.Runtime.Adapter
- Direction
- GustShell.Runtime uses Gust.DAG.Runtime. Changing Gust.DAG.Runtime can break GustShell.Runtime, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
33→2 GustShell.TaskWorker depends on Gust.DAG✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in GustShell.TaskWorker → type in Gust.DAG) reference.
- Which types
GustShell.TaskWorker.Adapter→Gust.DAG.TaskWorker
- Direction
- GustShell.TaskWorker uses Gust.DAG. Changing Gust.DAG can break GustShell.TaskWorker, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
34→8 GustWeb.MCP.Resources depends on GustWeb.MCP✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in GustWeb.MCP.Resources → type in GustWeb.MCP) reference.
- Which types
GustWeb.MCP.Resources.List→GustWeb.MCP.Resources
- Direction
- GustWeb.MCP.Resources uses GustWeb.MCP. Changing GustWeb.MCP can break GustWeb.MCP.Resources, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
35→8 GustWeb.MCP.Tools depends on GustWeb.MCP✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in GustWeb.MCP.Tools → type in GustWeb.MCP) reference.
- Which types
GustWeb.MCP.Tools.List→GustWeb.MCP.Tools
- Direction
- GustWeb.MCP.Tools uses GustWeb.MCP. Changing GustWeb.MCP can break GustWeb.MCP.Tools, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
36→12 Gust.DAG.Parser.Adapters depends on Gust.DAG.Parser✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Gust.DAG.Parser.Adapters → type in Gust.DAG.Parser) reference.
- Which types
Gust.DAG.Parser.Adapters.Elixir→Gust.DAG.Parser.Adapter
- Direction
- Gust.DAG.Parser.Adapters uses Gust.DAG.Parser. Changing Gust.DAG.Parser can break Gust.DAG.Parser.Adapters, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
37→12 GustPy.Parser depends on Gust.DAG.Parser✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in GustPy.Parser → type in Gust.DAG.Parser) reference.
- Which types
GustPy.Parser.Adapter→Gust.DAG.Parser.Adapter
- Direction
- GustPy.Parser uses Gust.DAG.Parser. Changing Gust.DAG.Parser can break GustPy.Parser, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
38→12 GustShell.Parser depends on Gust.DAG.Parser✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in GustShell.Parser → type in Gust.DAG.Parser) reference.
- Which types
GustShell.Parser.Adapter→Gust.DAG.Parser.Adapter
- Direction
- GustShell.Parser uses Gust.DAG.Parser. Changing Gust.DAG.Parser can break GustShell.Parser, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
39→9 GustWeb depends on (global)✕
- Type pairs
- 10 distinct (type in GustWeb → type in (global)) references.
- Which types
GustWeb.APIController→GustWebGustWeb.BreadcrumbsComponent→GustWebGustWeb.DagSummaryComponent→GustWebGustWeb.ErrorHTML→GustWebGustWeb.Layouts→GustWebGustWeb.MCPController→GustWebGustWeb.Router→GustWebGustWeb.SelectedItemStatusComponent→GustWebGustWeb.SystemLive→GustWebGustWeb.WellKnownController→GustWeb
- Direction
- GustWeb uses (global). Changing (global) can break GustWeb, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
40→9 GustWeb.DagLive depends on (global)✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in GustWeb.DagLive → type in (global)) references.
- Which types
GustWeb.DagLive.Dashboard→GustWebGustWeb.DagLive.Index→GustWeb
- Direction
- GustWeb.DagLive uses (global). Changing (global) can break GustWeb.DagLive, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
At a glance — Accessibility
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 37 | High / Critical |
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 7 | Medium |
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 3 | Medium |
Roadmap
First, integrate automated security scanning into the CI pipeline to block regressions and maintain a changelog to track release history. Next, extend structured logging across all modules to ensure production issues are diagnosable and verify that deployment approvals are properly configured to prevent bad builds from reaching users. Finally, fix accessibility by ensuring all form controls and buttons have proper programmatic labels.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: sobelow (Elixir/Phoenix) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing. | +12.6 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. | +12.1 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production. | +11.1 pts | Medium | Observability |
| The release job declares an environment, but its protection rules are not visible from the repository — confirm required reviewers are attached, or publish as a draft release so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it. | +8.1 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +3.2 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label. | +5.9 pts | Medium | Forms & labels |
| Enforce accessibility over your pages: run an accessibility checker (axe-core, pa11y or Lighthouse) against your HTML in CI and fail the build on new violations — these run as standalone tools without adding a package manifest. | +5.9 pts | Medium | A11y enforcement |
| Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh. | +5.9 pts | Medium | Page structure |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 1.6 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 2.3 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 5.6 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 6.3 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 6.9 | Mixed | Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium CVE: REDACTED |
| apps/gust/lib/gust/flows.ex | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: TooManyFunctions: Flows |
| apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web/live/dag_live/dashboard.ex | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: TooManyFunctions: Dashboard |
| apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web/live/run_live/index.ex | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: TooManyFunctions: Index |
| REDACTED | 9.3 | Near-clean | Dependency Vulnerabilities: Low vulnerability: REDACTED |
| README.md | 9.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Documentation: no installation or build instructions |
How the grades work
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.
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. 54 of 57 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 57 dimensions across the health lenses
- 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, 57 of 74 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Watchdog duplication detector (in-process) | Code duplication | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.400 | ✓ 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 · 3.2.533 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT READ here — but this repository measures it: a coverage step in CI (`mix coveralls`) shows that coverage is collected and tracked in your own CI. The built-in collector has no runner for this ecosystem (.exs, .ex), so the analyzer could not read the number — a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not an unmeasured repo. Not scored. To have the real number read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `mix test --cover` with `excoveralls` (`mix coveralls.lcov`)) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `mix test --cover` with `excoveralls` (`mix coveralls.lcov`)) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
- D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.exs, .ex) but the built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem, so flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares an Elixir mix.exs/REDACTED (Hex), but the licence verdict published here was taken over its npm package dependencies. Nothing was read about its Mix dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
- D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (6 contributor(s) across 627 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 91% of the history; the other 5 hold 1.8% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (apps/gust/mix.exs), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
- AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
- C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
- C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
- C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and this repository's Elixir is most of its product and is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and this repository's Elixir is most of its product and is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded, and no named async function in this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript makes a request an AbortSignal can cancel (fetch, axios, ky, ofetch), so there is nothing to judge, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Java source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's TypeScript/JavaScript is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Java, Rust and Erlang source only, and no C# was loaded, no Java, Rust or Erlang was found, and this repository's Elixir, JavaScript is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C# was loaded and no PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby or Scala was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript makes no call through a named logger, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. X7 measured the part of this repository it reads (C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust, Go, Java, Kotlin and PHP), and its Elixir source is outside the check's reach, so the card covers only part of the product. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the unread source is free of silent defaults.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- 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 on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- 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.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
- AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
- AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
- AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
- AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
- 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.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
D3 · God Classes
3 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.
What to do
- Resolve the 3 TooManyFunctions finding(s) in God Classes — start with flows.ex, dashboard.ex, index.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
D5 · Coupling
5 production modules (npm+OTP), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 1 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 4 of the 5 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 7 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 retired direct Hex dependencies, 2 pinning defect(s). 4 of 36 direct dependencies were graded against hex.pm (0 not published there, 32 not resolved by a committed lockfile). Whether any of these packages is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — hex.pm publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Whether any is UNUSED is not graded either: a Hex app name does not determine the modules it provides (`ecto_sql` provides Ecto.Adapters.SQL), and a large idiomatic class of BEAM dependencies — runtime adapters, codec plugins, protocol implementations and OTP applications the release starts — is correctly declared and never referenced in source, so absence of a reference is not evidence of an unused dependency. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED there.
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Unbounded dependency requirement finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 2 shipped npm package(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from registry.npmjs.org over the 2 production dependency(ies) this repository's committed lockfile resolves, across 1 product package.json manifest(s). Its 0 `devDependencies` declaration(s) are excluded: a consumer installs none of them. ★ DEPTH: this is the DIRECT production set the lockfile resolves, NOT the transitive closure — only one of the four lock dialects this pass reads states a full graph, so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is outside this verdict, exactly as the JVM arm's declaration-site verdict is. ★ Each licence is the one the registry publishes for the package's CURRENT release rather than for the pinned version, which is the same caveat the Hex and RubyGems arms carry. This repository publishes itself under ISC, which is its own choice and is not judged here. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's npm package dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares an Elixir mix.exs/REDACTED (Hex), and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted task-comment markers across 10602 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's root README is clear and well-structured: it states what Gust is (a DAG-based workflow orchestration engine for Elixir), its features (efficient, fast, developer-friendly, easy to scale), a one-line GitHub Actions badge, coverage status, and the license. It also opens with a Why Gust section explaining why task orchestration needs a new system, followed by a table of contents that lists every document in the set. The READMEs for each subdirectory (apps/gust/, apps/gust_py/, apps/gust_shell/, apps/gust_web/, examples/dags/, examples/docker/) are all directory-specific READMEs and do not appear to be written for the repository root, so they fall outside the scope of this evaluation.
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were 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).
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 6 build units (Mix, npm) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
37 finding(s): 0 critical, 34 high, 3 medium, 0 low. 31 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.
What to do
- Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 31 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (31 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
3 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 2 medium, 1 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Low vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D31 · IaC & Container Security
7 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 6 medium, 1 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 6 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (6). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 44 of the 172 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
What to do
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D43 · Malicious Dependencies
No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AC2 · Forms & labels
- This <label> has no for and wraps no form control, so it names nothing: assistive tech never announces it, and clicking the caption focuses no field. Note that an id on the label is not an association — it is the TARGET of one, so a control still has to point at it. Give the label for="<the control's id>", move the control inside the label, or point the control's aria-labelledby at this label's id. (×3) — apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web/live/secret_live/index.html.heex:48, apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web/live/secret_live/index.html.heex:55, apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web/live/secret_live/index.html.heex:67
What to do
- Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
AC3 · Page structure
- A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>. — apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web/components/layouts/root.html.heex:2
- No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. — apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web/components/layouts/root.html.heex:2
What to do
- Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
AC5 · ARIA correctness
- "{" is not a valid value for aria-current — allowed: true, false, page, step, location, date, time. — apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web/live/run_live/index.html.heex:243
What to do
- Use valid, non-abstract roles, supply the ARIA state each role requires, and never put aria-hidden on a focusable element.
AC6 · Visual & motion safety
AC7 · A11y enforcement
- No accessibility enforcement found — no automated accessibility check runs over your pages. Add an accessibility checker (axe-core, pa11y or Lighthouse) over your HTML in CI and fail the build on new violations. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 6 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
What to do
- Enforce accessibility over your pages: run an accessibility checker (axe-core, pa11y or Lighthouse) against your HTML in CI and fail the build on new violations — these run as standalone tools without adding a package manifest.
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
AX4 · Dependency direction
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- 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 5 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 0.4 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, 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 each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
M3 · Folder & project structure
- 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'.
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.
M4 · Documentation accuracy
P1 · CI/CD gates
P10 · Library API & versioning
P2 · Observability
- Only 3/4 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `.`.
What to do
- Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry with opentelemetry_phoenix, or PromEx) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route in your Phoenix router or Plug) for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add sobelow (Elixir/Phoenix) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 17173 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
- Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: sobelow (Elixir/Phoenix) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
What to do
- The release job declares an environment, but its protection rules are not visible from the repository — confirm required reviewers are attached, or publish as a draft release so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
- Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
X1 · Async correctness
X12 · Unreachable branch
X13 · Undrained process stream
X14 · Bypassable address classification
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
X16 · Unfloored truncation loop
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness
X19 · Unrestored process-global state
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
X25 · Inert configuration knob
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
| Dimension | WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| AC2 · Forms & labels | 1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC3 · Page structure | 1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC5 · ARIA correctness | 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC6 · Visual & motion safety | 1.4.3, 2.4.7 | Partial — literal CSS only |
| AC7 · A11y enforcement | enforcement — no page criterion | Enforcement posture (process) |
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 99% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Architecture | 93% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 64% | Adequate — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 40% | Weak — gated by D12, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 77% | Adequate — gated by D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Accessibility | 54% | Adequate | Acceptable, with room to improve. |
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — 1 observation(s) recorded · Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- 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.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 59 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: the BEAM has no dependency-injection container — state lives in processes, and no process is handed an instance whose lifetime another one scopes.
- AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: Elixir processes share no mutable memory — state lives in a process's own mailbox — so there is no shared object to race on. TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
- 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
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — compose up failed (exit 18 — an image could not be pulled) — gust Pulling gust-web Pulling db Pulling gust-init Pulling db Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden gust Error context canceled gust-init Error context canceled gust-web Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the earlier `compose pull` step reported: gust-init Skipped - Image is already being pulled by gust-web db Pulling gust Pulling gust-web Pulling gust-web Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden db Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden gust Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the runtime sandbox reaches registries only through the in-fence pull-through mirror, so an image the mirror does not carry cannot be fetched — this is a limit of our sandbox, not of your stack; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
- 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.
- D10 Test Quality — ~13513 lines of test source are present (.exs, .ex) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — no .exs test runner
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
- 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 — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.exs, .ex) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens 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 lens looks for
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# and JavaScript/TypeScript, and neither was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- 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
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected — no HTTP client call or construction in the Elixir, JavaScript/TypeScript source (service entry point: apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web.ex:24 (use Phoenix.Router))
- P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `mix test --cover` with `excoveralls` (`mix coveralls.lcov`)) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Benchmark discipline was not assessed: this repository is written in Elixir, whose benchmark frameworks this check does not search yet. That is a gap in the analyzer's language reach, not a finding about your code.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Elixir runs on a garbage-collected runtime that gives a program no allocation-control idiom to choose on a hot path — no pools, stack allocation or value types — so allocation awareness is not something this code can be rated on.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: Elixir has no async/await function colour, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
- 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.
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — 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
- X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X22 Contradicted release guard — 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
- X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — Not applicable: this check looks for a collection written by a callback on one thread while the body waiting on it touches it on another, and in this repository's languages no collection is reachable from two threads at once. Elixir processes share no heap: a value sent to another process arrives as a copy, so no collection is reachable from two processes at once. TypeScript/JavaScript runs every callback on the one thread that owns its objects: a callback runs only when the body waiting on it has yielded, never alongside it, and a worker thread receives a COPY of what it is sent. A SharedArrayBuffer carries raw bytes, never an Array, Map or Set, so no collection is reachable from two threads at once. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — 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
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- 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 applicable: this check asks whether the null-typed discipline a language offers is switched on, and how much of that the assertion operator takes back, and in this repository's languages there is no such switch and no such operator. Elixir's `nil` is an atom in a dynamically typed language: `@spec`s are checked by an external analysis that has no nullability operator, so there is no null-typed discipline in the language to adopt. Plain JavaScript carries no type annotations and commits no tsconfig, so it states no null-typed discipline for this check to grade: there is nothing here that switches null checking on or off, and TypeScript (or `// @ts-check`) is how a repository acquires one — advice, not a defect this card measures. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Critical — 39 finding(s)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- <label> that labels no control apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web/live/secret_live/index.html.heex:48
- <label> that labels no control apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web/live/secret_live/index.html.heex:55
- <label> that labels no control apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web/live/secret_live/index.html.heex:67
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Document without a <title> apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web/components/layouts/root.html.heex:2
- Invalid value "{" for aria-current apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web/live/run_live/index.html.heex:243
Serious — 21 finding(s)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- TooManyFunctions: Flows apps/gust/lib/gust/flows.ex:1
- TooManyFunctions: Dashboard apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web/live/dag_live/dashboard.ex:1
- TooManyFunctions: Index apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web/live/run_live/index.ex:1
- Unbounded dependency requirement: postgrex
- Unbounded dependency requirement: phoenix_live_view
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Page without a main landmark apps/gust_web/lib/gust_web/components/layouts/root.html.heex:2
- Accessibility enforcement below the top rung
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Off the main sequence: gust
- Coverage collected but not gated
Minor — 14 finding(s)
- Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md
- No ADRs found
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- No ADRs
- No src/ separation
- Logging is not universal
- No SAST
- No changelog
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-58b50a9ee05e43aa89a0c0ca85d53a39/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-58b50a9ee05e43aa89a0c0ca85d53a39/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off . | 37 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 3 | artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 7 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. | 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 | — |
| 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 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json |