Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
marvinbuss/PurviewAutomation carries serious gaps (53%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
It is strongest in Security (86%) — its security and compliance posture is in good shape.
The area that most needs attention is Code Health (47%) — changes there are slower and more error-prone. Maturity (51%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException… (Incompleteness & stubs); Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops… (Cancellation propagation); Interpolated log message defeats structured logging (Structured logging).
For scale: Hobby (~1,797 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Security foundation (86%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
47%
Weak · gated by X4, X5, IC1
Architecture
72%
Adequate · gated by D35
Maturity
51%
Adequate · gated by D34, M2
Readiness
51%
Adequate · gated by D8, D9
Security
86%
Strong
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Code Health 47% · 47% weightMaturity 51% · 26% weightReadiness 51% · 14% weightArchitecture 72% · 8% weightSecurity 86% · 4% weight
No single dominant problem — the weakest areas are close, so progress on any of them moves the score.
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 46%Plumbing 54%
New since the last scan (1+)
- D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: PurviewAutomation code/PurviewAutomation/PurviewAutomation.csproj ↻ reappeared after being resolved
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €800–€4,100
| Cost to rebuild | €800–€4,100 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 53% quality) |
| Size & shape | Hobby · 24% boilerplate · 30% straight-line · 46% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€2,400 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Code Health at 47% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
3
Resolve the 8 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with CosmosOnboardingClient.cs, KustoOnboardingClient.cs, MySqlServerOnboardingClient.cs.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live. The rest can wait behind it.
Improving trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+5.1 pts/run over 5 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Trajectory
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurity
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
10.0
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
10.0
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
9.1
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
9.2
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
8.8
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
The Ugly
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Bad
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 11 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, eliminate dead code by completing or removing the seven unfinished method stubs to ensure all public APIs are fully implemented. Next, improve reliability by adding cancellation tokens to all asynchronous methods so that operations can be stopped promptly. Then, replace interpolated log messages with structured logging to improve observability. After that, enable nullable reference types across all projects and resolve warnings instead of suppressing them. Finally, begin documenting significant architectural decisions in an ADR log to capture the rationale behind key design choices.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. | +4.7 pts | Low | Code Coverage |
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +4.7 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Resolve the 8 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with CosmosOnboardingClient.cs, KustoOnboardingClient.cs, MySqlServerOnboardingClient.cs. | +3.5 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +3.4 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live. | +6.5 pts | Medium | Incompleteness & stubs |
| Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation. | +6.5 pts | Medium | Cancellation propagation |
| Interpolated log message defeats structured logging | +6.5 pts | Medium | Structured logging |
| Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`. | +6.5 pts | Medium | Nullable reference types |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/KustoOnboardingClient.cs | 5.0 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (32 lines × 2) |
| code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/CosmosOnboardingClient.cs | 6.0 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PurviewAutomationClient.cs | 6.0 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: Dead code: GetDataSourceAsync |
| code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs | 6.0 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: Dead code: PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient |
| code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/SqlDatabaseOnboardingClient.cs | 6.0 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: Dead code: GetResourceAsync |
| code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/MySqlServerOnboardingClient.cs | 6.7 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: Dead code: MySqlServerOnboardingClient |
| code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/SynapseOnboardingClient.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| code/PurviewAutomation/PurviewAutomation.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: PurviewAutomation |
| code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/StorageOnboardingClient.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: StorageOnboardingClient.cs ↔ SynapseOnboardingClient.cs |
| docs/DefaultCollectionStructure.md | 9.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Typo: 'strcuture' should be 'structure'. |
| docs/Deployment.md | 9.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Typo: 'mentioend' should be 'mentioned'. |
| README.md | 9.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Broken image link: The image source '/docs/images/PurviewScanning.gif' is followed by a closing parenthesis and then a newline, suggesting a formatting error in the markdown. |
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. 41 of 44 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 0.6 — 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 — 44 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D34D35AX10AX3AX4AX5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P3P4X1X2X3X4X5
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 46 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 |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- 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.
- D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- 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".
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
7 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (32 lines × 2)code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/KustoOnboardingClient.cs:118
Duplicated block (15 lines × 4)code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/KustoOnboardingClient.cs:44
Duplicated block (13 lines × 6)code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/CosmosOnboardingClient.cs:46
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2)code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/CosmosOnboardingClient.cs:59
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2)code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PurviewAutomationClient.cs:149
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
1 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 9 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D8 · Code Coverage
No automated tests — the solution has no test code.
No automated tests
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
No test projects found.
No tests found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 16 packages use a banned license.
Licenses scanned
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
3 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PurviewAutomationClient.cs, held by marvin.buss@gmail.com.
Knowledge silo code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PurviewAutomationClient.cs
Knowledge silocode/PurviewAutomation/Clients/KustoOnboardingClient.cs
Off-boarding risk: marvin.buss@gmail.com
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Knowledge silo finding(s) in Bus Factor — start with PurviewAutomation.cs, PurviewAutomationClient.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Knowledge silo finding(s) in Bus Factor — start with KustoOnboardingClient.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
3 deducted debt markers + 5 dead symbols across 1797 LoC (0.4/KLoC) → score 9.2.
Dead code: MySqlServerOnboardingClient code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/MySqlServerOnboardingClient.cs:11
TodoComment code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/CosmosOnboardingClient.cs:87
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
1 projects, 25 .cs files, 1797 hand-written lines of code (1797 production / 0 test), 0 inter-project edges.
PurviewAutomation (Production)code/PurviewAutomation/PurviewAutomation.csproj
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The project documentation is structurally sound and covers essential aspects like architecture, deployment, and configuration. The README provides a good high-level overview, and the deployment guide is detailed. However, the documentation suffers from significant technical inaccuracies (e.g., claiming 'Purview' when referring to 'Synapse' in the Default Collection Structure section), typos, and a critical lack of code-level documentation (1% XML-doc coverage). The clipped content suggests there is more to see, but the existing text has factual errors that undermine trust.
Low XML-doc coverage: PurviewAutomationcode/PurviewAutomation/PurviewAutomation.csproj
Typo: 'strcuture' should be 'structure'. docs/DefaultCollectionStructure.md
Broken image link: The image source '/docs/images/PurviewScanning.gif' is followed by a closing parenthesis and then a newline, suggesting a formatting error in the markdown.README.md
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Typo finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with DefaultCollectionStructure.md, Deployment.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with PurviewAutomation.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Broken image link finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were found.
No ADRs found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 180 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
3 valuable / 3 redundant across 129 sampled comments; 3 shown with locations.
redundant comment code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/CosmosOnboardingClient.cs:32
What to do
- Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with CosmosOnboardingClient.cs (2), KustoOnboardingClient.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 1 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
69 % of calls cross a namespace and 0 % go through an interface, but 88 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
11 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 5 high, 5 medium, 1 low.
High CVE: Azure.Identity 1.9.0
Medium CVE: Azure.Identity 1.9.0
Low CVE: Microsoft.Identity.Client 4.49.1
What to do
- Resolve the 5 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
- Resolve the 5 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Low CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
10 of 10 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PurviewAutomationClient.cs.
Orphaned knowledge code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PurviewAutomationClient.cs
Orphaned knowledge code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/SynapseOnboardingClient.cs
What to do
- Resolve the 8 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with CosmosOnboardingClient.cs, KustoOnboardingClient.cs, MySqlServerOnboardingClient.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with PurviewAutomation.cs, PurviewAutomationClient.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
Strongest change-coupling: MySqlServerOnboardingClient.cs↔PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs 90%; PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs↔SqlServerOnboardingClient.cs 90%; CosmosOnboardingClient.cs↔PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs 90%
Change coupling: MySqlServerOnboardingClient.cs ↔ PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/MySqlServerOnboardingClient.cs
What to do
- Resolve the 10 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs (3), CosmosOnboardingClient.cs (2), KustoOnboardingClient.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
- A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×5) — CosmosOnboardingClient.cs:90, MySqlServerOnboardingClient.cs:80, PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs:80, …
What to do
- Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- `AddScanningManagedPrivateEndpointsAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. (×2) — KustoOnboardingClient.cs:73, SqlDatabaseOnboardingClient.cs:65
- `AddScanAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×4) — MySqlServerOnboardingClient.cs:78, PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs:78, SqlDatabaseOnboardingClient.cs:71, …
- `AddDataSourceAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — SqlDatabaseOnboardingClient.cs:60
- A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×7) — KustoOnboardingClient.cs:204, MySqlServerOnboardingClient.cs:100, PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs:100, …
What to do
- Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
- Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
What to do
- Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
What to do
- Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing (CodeQL / security analyzers / codehealth) detected.
What to do
- Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.
What to do
- Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
- Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X2 · Cancellation propagation
- Only 0/66 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
- No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×25) — CosmosOnboardingClient.cs:30, CosmosOnboardingClient.cs:43, CosmosOnboardingClient.cs:73, …
What to do
- Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
- Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. (×20) — KustoOnboardingClient.cs:165, PurviewAutomationClient.cs:96, PurviewAutomationClient.cs:118, …
What to do
- Interpolated log message defeats structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
X5 · Nullable reference types
- 0/1 projects enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable>. NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
What to do
- Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 47% | Weak — gated by X4, X5, IC1 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 72% | Adequate — gated by D35 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Maturity | 51% | Adequate — gated by D34, M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 51% | Adequate — gated by D8, D9 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 86% | Strong | Strongest area. |
Not included — 48 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- D10 Test Quality — No tests in the analyzed solution to assess for quality.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — The codebase is small and single-project, making the declaration of bounded contexts unnecessary.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D31 IaC & Container Security — Not applicable
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — Not applicable
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — Not applicable
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
- D39 IL Efficiency — IL metrics not applicable
- D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
- P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 10 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- High CVE: Azure.Identity 1.9.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 5.1.1
- High CVE: System.Formats.Asn1 5.0.0
- High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0
- High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0
D16 · Bus Factor
- Knowledge silo code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PurviewAutomationClient.cs
- Knowledge silo code/PurviewAutomation/PurviewAutomation.cs
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Orphaned knowledge code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PurviewAutomationClient.cs
- Orphaned knowledge code/PurviewAutomation/PurviewAutomation.cs
D8 · Code Coverage
- No automated tests
Warning — 40 finding(s)
D35 · Change Coupling
- Change coupling: MySqlServerOnboardingClient.cs ↔ PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/MySqlServerOnboardingClient.cs
- Change coupling: PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs ↔ SqlServerOnboardingClient.cs code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs
- Change coupling: CosmosOnboardingClient.cs ↔ PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/CosmosOnboardingClient.cs
- Change coupling: SqlDatabaseOnboardingClient.cs ↔ SqlServerOnboardingClient.cs code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/SqlDatabaseOnboardingClient.cs
- Change coupling: KustoOnboardingClient.cs ↔ SynapseOnboardingClient.cs code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/KustoOnboardingClient.cs
- Change coupling: StorageOnboardingClient.cs ↔ SynapseOnboardingClient.cs code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/StorageOnboardingClient.cs
- Change coupling: CosmosOnboardingClient.cs ↔ KustoOnboardingClient.cs code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/CosmosOnboardingClient.cs
- Change coupling: PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs ↔ SynapseOnboardingClient.cs code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs
- Change coupling: KustoOnboardingClient.cs ↔ PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/KustoOnboardingClient.cs
- Change coupling: PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs ↔ StorageOnboardingClient.cs code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Orphaned knowledge code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/SynapseOnboardingClient.cs
- Orphaned knowledge code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/KustoOnboardingClient.cs
- Orphaned knowledge code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/StorageOnboardingClient.cs
- Orphaned knowledge code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/CosmosOnboardingClient.cs
- Orphaned knowledge code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/SqlServerOnboardingClient.cs
- Orphaned knowledge code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs
- Orphaned knowledge code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/MySqlServerOnboardingClient.cs
- Orphaned knowledge code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/SqlDatabaseOnboardingClient.cs
D17 · Explicit Debt
- Dead code: MySqlServerOnboardingClient code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/MySqlServerOnboardingClient.cs:11
- Dead code: PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PostgreSqlServerOnboardingClient.cs:11
- Dead code: GetDataSourceAsync code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PurviewAutomationClient.cs:190
- Dead code: GetResourceAsync code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/SqlDatabaseOnboardingClient.cs:31
- Dead code: GetParentResourceAsync code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/SqlDatabaseOnboardingClient.cs:42
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium CVE: Azure.Identity 1.9.0
- Medium CVE: Azure.Identity 1.9.0
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.Identity.Client 4.49.1
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 6.24.0
- Medium CVE: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 6.24.0
D17 · Explicit Debt
- TodoComment code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/CosmosOnboardingClient.cs:87
- TodoComment code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/CosmosOnboardingClient.cs:88
- TodoComment code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/SynapseOnboardingClient.cs:112
D16 · Bus Factor
- Knowledge silo code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/KustoOnboardingClient.cs
D19 · Documentation Quality
- Low XML-doc coverage: PurviewAutomation code/PurviewAutomation/PurviewAutomation.csproj
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (32 lines × 2) code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/KustoOnboardingClient.cs:118
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 4) code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/KustoOnboardingClient.cs:44
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 6) code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/CosmosOnboardingClient.cs:46
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/CosmosOnboardingClient.cs:59
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PurviewAutomationClient.cs:149
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PurviewAutomationClient.cs:297
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/PurviewAutomationClient.cs:135
Recommendation — 21 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value
- redundant comment code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/CosmosOnboardingClient.cs:32
- redundant comment code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/CosmosOnboardingClient.cs:45
- redundant comment code/PurviewAutomation/Clients/KustoOnboardingClient.cs:83
D19 · Documentation Quality
- Typo: 'strcuture' should be 'structure'. docs/DefaultCollectionStructure.md
- Typo: 'mentioend' should be 'mentioned'. docs/Deployment.md
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D16 · Bus Factor
- Off-boarding risk: marvin.buss@gmail.com
D19 · Documentation Quality
- Broken image link: The image source '/docs/images/PurviewScanning.gif' is followed by a closing parenthesis and then a newline, suggesting a formatting error in the markdown. README.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- No ADRs found
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- The codebase is small and single-project, making the declaration of bounded contexts unnecessary.
D25 · ADR Conformance
- no ADRs to check
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Low CVE: Microsoft.Identity.Client 4.49.1
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Not applicable
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)
- Not applicable
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Not applicable
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
- Not applicable
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D39 · IL Efficiency
- IL metrics not applicable
D7 · Architectural Integrity
- No checkable ADRs to assess
D9 · Test Distribution
- No tests found
Info — 3 finding(s)
D14 · License Compliance
- Licenses scanned
D18 · Solution Shape
- PurviewAutomation (Production) code/PurviewAutomation/PurviewAutomation.csproj
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet list code/PurviewAutomation.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 11 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release). | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan. | 0 | — |