Public report — booking-microservices-expressjs, published 20 Sep 2026. Concrete security findings (which rule fired, in which file, on which line; CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are REDACTED in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Public
Codebase survey Measured under the Code Assurance Index · rubric rubric-2026.09.15 (frozen) · verify this survey Filed cd_2b0b4cff791542a88a4be143c389c4da Filed 25 September 2026, 05:10 UTC Public

Meysamhadeli/booking-Microservices-Expressjs

Measured 20 September 2026, 22:24 UTC

31% Weak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary

Small · 6,858 LoC · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Domain Modelling (10%)

Findings by grade

45 critical 340 serious 76 minor 47 could not be resolved — could be critical — see Limitations

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
20 September 2026, 22:24 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index does not certify, approve or guarantee this codebase; it records a reproducible number and the evidence it was computed from. The standard is authored by Canine Development, who also build Watchdog — its only implementation today. That is said here so the number is checked rather than believed.

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

37/40dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
441findings with an exact file:lineof 461 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
40/133dimensions across the health lenses6858 LoC — wide & deep
Chapters

Executive summary

This system is a small, low-cost asset with a fragile foundation. While the code is clean and the architecture is sound, the business logic is poorly defined, creating a significant risk that changes will break core functionality. The overall health score is weak, driven primarily by this structural ambiguity rather than technical debt or operational instability.

The value at stake is minimal, with a rebuild cost of approximately €6,800. This low barrier to entry means the organization is not locked in by complexity, but it also means the current state offers little protection against business logic errors. The system is small enough to be restructured quickly, but the current domain model is so weak that it undermines confidence in any feature development.

The primary risk is poor domain modeling. With a score of ten percent, the system lacks a clear representation of business rules. This means developers must guess intent, leading to high defect rates and slow delivery. It is not a technical failure, but a business alignment failure that will cause rework and confusion for any new team member.

A secondary concern is operational readiness. The system scores poorly on production safety, lacking robust disaster recovery and security scanning. While not immediately catastrophic, this exposes the business to potential outages and security regressions. The build pipeline also lacks integrity checks, meaning supply chain risks are unmonitored.

On the positive side, the code is well-structured and maintainable. The architecture is clean, and there is no boilerplate bloat. This technical cleanliness is a strong asset that makes remediation easier. The system is not broken; it is just misaligned with business needs.

Focus first on clarifying the domain model. Restructure the data mapping to separate business logic from database interactions. This single action will provide the highest return on investment by stabilizing the core logic. Once the domain is clear, address the operational gaps in security and recovery. The picture is partial, as some modern practices were not measured, but the core risks are clear.

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.
Domain Modelling 10% · 46% weightReadiness 30% · 25% weightSecurity 55% · 14% weightMaturity 67% · 8% weightArchitecture 83% · 4% weightCode Health 83% · 2% weight

Raise Domain Modelling 10 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 31 → ~48.

Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
New since the last scan (100+)

365 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-20) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required. Showing the first 100; the full set is in the report.

  • D2 · REDACTED.expressAuthentication (cognitive 29) src/building-blocks/jwt/jwt.ts
  • D8 · Coverage not measured — JavaScript/TypeScript suite
  • D11 · Test suite declares a test script but contains no test files: src/booking/
  • D11 · Test suite declares a test script but contains no test files: src/flight/
  • D11 · Test suite declares a test script but contains no test files: src/passenger/
  • D12 · One package at two majors across the workspace: @opentelemetry/sdk-trace-node
  • D28 · REDACTED
  • D28 · REDACTED
  • D28 · REDACTED
  • D28 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED
  • D31 · REDACTED

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €2,300–€11,000
Cost to rebuild€2,300–€11,000 (0.1 person-years (38–119 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 31% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)
Dead frontend code~211 LoC unreachable (6 file(s)) — that slice of this estimate buys code with zero runtime value; deleting it is the cheapest win in this report (the R7 card lists every file)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€6,800 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Domain Modelling at 10% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.1) — vertical slice × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.

1
Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + mapper; leave the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository).
+19.0 pts · REDACTED effort · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
2
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
+9.6 pts · REDACTED effort · Security & performance tooling
3
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
+9.6 pts · REDACTED effort · DR & Backup

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · REDACTED · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Domain Modelling at 10%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (6,858 LoC) · weakest lens: Domain Modelling 10%
→ Direct remediation budget at Domain Modelling first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · REDACTED · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + mapper; leave the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository). The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + mapper; leave the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository).

Architecture — module dependency matrix

Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

126 modules, 133 dependencies. Every dependency points down the layering — no cycles.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 86 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →1 building-blocks.contracts.flight_contract2 building-blocks.contracts.identity_contract3 building-blocks.contracts.passenger_contract4 building-blocks.logging.logger5 building-blocks.mediatr-js.mediatr-js6 building-blocks.rabbitmq.rabbitmq-connection-options-builder7 building-blocks.rabbitmq.rabbitmq-consumer8 building-blocks.rabbitmq.rabbitmq-publisher9 identity.src.auth.dtos.auth_dto10 identity.src.auth.enums.token-type_enum11 booking.src.booking.features.v1.create-booking.create-booking12 building-blocks.open-telemetry.otel-diagnostics-provider13 building-blocks.rabbitmq.rabbitmq-connection14 flight.src.aircraft.features.v1.create-aircraft.create-aircraft15 flight.src.airport.features.v1.create-airport.create-airport16 flight.src.flight.entities.flight_entity17 identity.src.user.dtos.user_dto18 identity.src.user.entities.user_entity19 booking.src.extensions20 flight.src.data.repositories.flight_repository21 flight.src.extensions22 flight.src.seat.entities.seat_entity23 identity.src.auth.entities.token_entity24 identity.src.data.repositories.user_repository25 identity.src.extensions26 flight.src.data.repositories.seat_repository27 flight.src.flight.features.v1.create-flight.create-flight28 flight.src.flight.features.v1.get-flight-by-id.get-flight-by-id29 identity.src.auth.features.v1.login.login30 identity.src.data.repositories.auth_repository31 identity.src.user.features.v1.create-user.create-user32 identity.src.user.features.v1.delete-user-by-id.delete-user-by-id33 identity.src.user.features.v1.get-user-by-id.get-user-by-id34 identity.src.user.features.v1.update-user.update-user35 flight.src.seat.features.v1.create-seat.create-seat36 flight.src.seat.features.v1.reserve-seat.reserve-seat37 identity.src.auth.features.v1.generate-token.generate-token38 identity.src.auth.features.v1.refresh-token.refresh-token39 identity.src.auth.features.v1.validate-token.validate-token40 identity.test.shared.fixtures.integration-test_fixture
1 building-blocks.contracts.flight_contract
2 building-blocks.contracts.identity_contract
3 building-blocks.contracts.passenger_contract
4 building-blocks.logging.logger
5 building-blocks.mediatr-js.mediatr-js
6 building-blocks.rabbitmq.rabbitmq-connection-options-builder
7 building-blocks.rabbitmq.rabbitmq-consumer
8 building-blocks.rabbitmq.rabbitmq-publisher
9 identity.src.auth.dtos.auth_dto
10 identity.src.auth.enums.token-type_enum
11 booking.src.booking.features.v1.create-booking.create-booking21
12 building-blocks.open-telemetry.otel-diagnostics-provider1
13 building-blocks.rabbitmq.rabbitmq-connection2
14 flight.src.aircraft.features.v1.create-aircraft.create-aircraft21
15 flight.src.airport.features.v1.create-airport.create-airport21
16 flight.src.flight.entities.flight_entity1
17 identity.src.user.dtos.user_dto1
18 identity.src.user.entities.user_entity1
19 booking.src.extensions111
20 flight.src.data.repositories.flight_repository2
21 flight.src.extensions111
22 flight.src.seat.entities.seat_entity21
23 identity.src.auth.entities.token_entity11
24 identity.src.data.repositories.user_repository2
25 identity.src.extensions111
26 flight.src.data.repositories.seat_repository2
27 flight.src.flight.features.v1.create-flight.create-flight4211
28 flight.src.flight.features.v1.get-flight-by-id.get-flight-by-id221
29 identity.src.auth.features.v1.login.login221
30 identity.src.data.repositories.auth_repository22
31 identity.src.user.features.v1.create-user.create-user22121
32 identity.src.user.features.v1.delete-user-by-id.delete-user-by-id2121
33 identity.src.user.features.v1.get-user-by-id.get-user-by-id221
34 identity.src.user.features.v1.update-user.update-user2211
35 flight.src.seat.features.v1.create-seat.create-seat62111
36 flight.src.seat.features.v1.reserve-seat.reserve-seat321111
37 identity.src.auth.features.v1.generate-token.generate-token211
38 identity.src.auth.features.v1.refresh-token.refresh-token221
39 identity.src.auth.features.v1.validate-token.validate-token2111
40 identity.test.shared.fixtures.integration-test_fixture11111
Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself
…racts.flight_contract…cts.identity_contract…ts.passenger_contract…blocks.logging.logger…mediatr-js.mediatr-js…ction-options-builder…tmq.rabbitmq-consumer…mq.rabbitmq-publisher…rc.auth.dtos.auth_dto…enums.token-type_enum…ooking.create-booking…-diagnostics-provider…q.rabbitmq-connection…craft.create-aircraft…irport.create-airport…ntities.flight_entity…rc.user.dtos.user_dto….entities.user_entity…ooking.src.extensions…ies.flight_repository…flight.src.extensions….entities.seat_entity…entities.token_entity…ories.user_repository…entity.src.extensions…ories.seat_repository…-flight.create-flight…y-id.get-flight-by-id…atures.v1.login.login…ories.auth_repository…eate-user.create-user…-id.delete-user-by-id…-by-id.get-user-by-id…date-user.update-user…eate-seat.create-seat…rve-seat.reserve-seat…-token.generate-token…h-token.refresh-token…-token.validate-token…egration-test_fixture…racts.flight_contract1…cts.identity_contract2…ts.passenger_contract3…blocks.logging.logger4…mediatr-js.mediatr-js5…ction-options-builder6…tmq.rabbitmq-consumer7…mq.rabbitmq-publisher8…rc.auth.dtos.auth_dto9…enums.token-type_enum10…ooking.create-booking11…-diagnostics-provider12…q.rabbitmq-connection13…craft.create-aircraft14…irport.create-airport15…ntities.flight_entity16…rc.user.dtos.user_dto17….entities.user_entity18…ooking.src.extensions19…ies.flight_repository20…flight.src.extensions21….entities.seat_entity22…entities.token_entity23…ories.user_repository24…entity.src.extensions25…ories.seat_repository26…-flight.create-flight27…y-id.get-flight-by-id28…atures.v1.login.login29…ories.auth_repository30…eate-user.create-user31…-id.delete-user-by-id32…-by-id.get-user-by-id33…date-user.update-user34…eate-seat.create-seat35…rve-seat.reserve-seat36…-token.generate-token37…h-token.refresh-token38…-token.validate-token39…egration-test_fixture40211221211111112111211121112421122122122221212121221221162111321111211221211111111+86 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 83% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 83% · Strong ·

At a glance — Maturity · 67% · Adequate · gated by D34 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 30% · Weak · gated by R4, R8, P3, P5 ·

At a glance — Security · 55% · Adequate · gated by D31 ·

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 10% · Critical · gated by DM6 ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration305REDACTED / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection13REDACTED / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures5REDACTED / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components2REDACTED

Roadmap

First, enforce strict separation between domain logic and infrastructure by keeping entities framework-free and using repositories for data mapping. Second, integrate security scanning into the CI pipeline to prevent regressions, while simultaneously cleaning up unused dependencies and moving test-only packages to development. Finally, establish disaster recovery procedures in infrastructure code and improve test coverage by refactoring unreachable entry points into importable modules.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + mapper; leave the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository).+19.0 ptsREDACTEDDomain ↔ infrastructure boundary
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.+9.6 ptsREDACTEDSecurity & performance tooling
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.+9.6 ptsREDACTEDDR & Backup
Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.+9.6 ptsREDACTEDDependency Hygiene
5 of the 83 unreached modules are entry points — something executes or loads them by path at run time, so no import specifier addresses them and no public entry publishes them. An importing test cannot be written for them as they ship, and two different things are worth doing here — they are not the same thing. To EXERCISE them, a test that runs the script the way its caller does; that is worth having, but it will NOT clear this row, because reachability is measured over the import graph and running a file by path adds no edge to it. To CLEAR it, make them addressable: lift the logic into a module a test can import and leave the entry points thin shims over it, or put their bodies behind a main-guard (`import.meta.url === argv[1]`) and export them. Add tests that import the other 78 — directly or through their public entry.+9.4 ptsREDACTEDTest Coverage
Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.+5.1 ptsREDACTEDDeployment & Rollback
Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.+1.6 ptsLowKnowledge Freshness
Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2).+1.3 ptsLowDocumentation Quality

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 23 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 43% slop · 48% mixed · 9% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED1.3SlopIaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED1.6SlopIaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED1.6SlopIaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED1.6SlopIaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED1.6SlopIaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED1.6SlopIaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED1.6SlopIaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED1.6SlopIaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED1.6SlopIaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED1.6SlopIaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedIaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED5.8MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED6.1MixedIaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED6.1MixedIaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED6.1MixedIaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED6.1MixedIaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 45

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.

Serious — 340

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.

Minor — 76

Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.

Could not be resolved — 47

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. 37 of 40 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 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 40 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D9D10D13D15D17D19D21D28D29D30D31D34D35D40D41D43AX10AX5DM6M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P5P6R1R10R2R3R4R6R7R8R9

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 441 of 461 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0c0eb-73d0-7140-8f7b-32d668008aaf.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

  • 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 reliability not scored — the JavaScript/TypeScript suite (jest via `npm install --ignore-scripts` (no lockfile) in src/booking/ (0 tests); jest via `npm install --ignore-scripts` (no lockfile) in src/flight/ (0 tests); jest via `npm install --ignore-scripts` (no lockfile) in src/passenger/ (0 tests)) ran but surfaced no test cases to the runner, so flakiness couldn't be exercised.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — 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. Not scored — 179 production npm declaration(s) across 5 package.json (5 of them the product) were read for PINNING discipline (1 defect(s) reported), but the outdated/deprecated signal needs registry.npmjs.org, and no committed lockfile here resolves to the concrete versions that question is asked about, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
  • D14 License Compliance — 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. Not scored — this repository declares package.json manifests but commits no lockfile this pass can resolve (npm, pnpm, yarn and bun each write a different one, and `bun.lockb` is a binary format with no published shape), so the set of packages it actually ships is not resolvable from the checkout: its declarations carry version RANGES, and grading whichever release happens to be newest today would be a verdict about a dependency graph this repository has not pinned. Commit the lock and this dimension grades its production dependencies against registry.npmjs.org. NOT a finding that this repository's licences are compliant: this dimension asserts nothing about its licensing in either direction.
  • 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 (2 contributor(s) across 170 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 98% of the history; the other 1 hold 2% 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: D22 has no public-API collector for any other ecosystem, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — measured, with a gap in what it reached — 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. The scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) (npm) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; REDACTED was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that REDACTED is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 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. `src/building-blocks/logging/logger.js`, `src/identity/jest.config.ts` produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
  • D43 Malicious Dependencies — measured, with a gap in what it reached — 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. The scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) (npm) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; REDACTED was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that REDACTED is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life — 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 dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (go.mod, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a REDACTED) is simply not read here yet.
  • AX3 Project dependency cycles — 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 which project references which — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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.
  • AX8 Test isolation — 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 which projects are test projects, and what they reference — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's 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.
  • DM1 Aggregate boundaries — 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. Not scored for TypeScript: a class holding another class reads the same whether the inner type is an aggregate or a value object, so this cannot be decided from source without guessing — reported as guidance rather than measured.
  • DM2 Strongly-typed ids — 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. Not scored for TypeScript: branded ids (`type Id = string & { __brand }`) are an uncommon idiom, so a bare-string id is not on its own evidence of a missing typed id — reported as guidance rather than measured.
  • DM3 Integration-event coupling — 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. Not scored for TypeScript: a domain type used across packages is indistinguishable in source from a deliberate shared-kernel package, so this is reported as guidance rather than measured.
  • DM4 Rich vs anemic model — 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. Not scored for TypeScript: telling a rich domain entity from an anemic data holder needs the behaviour a source-only read cannot always attribute (components, DTOs and readonly value objects are all legitimately data-shaped), so this is reported as guidance rather than measured.
  • DM5 Encapsulated state — 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. Not scored for TypeScript: the language already steers state behind #private/private/readonly, so a mutable public field is rare enough that we report this as guidance rather than measuring it.
  • DM7 Repository granularity — 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. Not scored for TypeScript: deciding whether a repository belongs to an aggregate root needs the aggregate structure, which source alone does not state — reported as guidance rather than measured.
  • ED5 Idempotency — 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 finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
  • 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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • 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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • R4 Test Coverage — 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. 44 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 84.
  • 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.
  • X1 Async correctness — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X12 Unreachable branch — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X13 Undrained process stream — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X14 Bypassable address classification — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • 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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • 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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X20 Mistyped argument 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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X21 Side-effecting pattern 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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • 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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X25 Inert configuration knob — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • 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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X28 Index access outside its own emptiness 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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • 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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • 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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X5 Nullable reference types — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.

Repo exclusion declarations: 15 pattern(s) declared (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code) excluded 0 source file(s) from code-quality scoring. Declarations are the repo's own visible statement that a tree is machine-written or vendored — auditable in any diff, honored by GitHub the same way.

Limitations & what we did not check

Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.

Per-dimension blind spots

For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • D40 Network Egress Confinement: Egress confinement is read from committed Kubernetes manifests — a policy applied out-of-band (cluster-default deny, a service mesh, or a cloud firewall/security group off-repo) is invisible, and a present NetworkPolicy is declared config, not proof the cluster admission-controller actually enforces it at runtime.
  • D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement: Syscall/MAC confinement is read from committed manifests — a profile applied by a cluster-wide PodSecurity default or a mutating webhook off-repo isn't seen, and a declared seccomp/AppArmor profile is config presence, not proof the node's kernel actually loaded and enforced it.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • 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".
  • P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.2 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was REDACTED.expressAuthentication at 29.

REDACTED.expressAuthentication (cognitive 29)src/building-blocks/jwt/jwt.ts:7

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 REDACTED.expressAuthentication (cognitive 29) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with REDACTED.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

3 test methods: 3 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 3 `it`/`test` case(s) across 3 test file(s) declaring at least one; its tier split is read from package names and paths only.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.

Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.

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

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 3 tests.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

REDACTED scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 deducted task-comment markers across 4887 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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md.

D19 · Documentation QualityAdequate◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.

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

The README is a well-structured single document with an impressive table of contents (Goals, Plan, Technologies - Libraries, The Domain and Bounded Context - Service Boundary, Structure of Project, How to Use Migrations, How to Run, Documentation Apis, Support, Contribution) plus links to CI, license, GitHub Codespaces, and a Kubernetes manifests README. It is clear and complete for an express/Node.Js microservices project but lacks the installation/build setup (which appears only in the table of contents outline), any usage examples beyond the How-to-Run section, and contribution guidance.

Documentation: no installation or build instructions · ×2README.md

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

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

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D28 · Secrets (history)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: REDACTED scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged REDACTED. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 finding(s): 0 critical, 4 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)5.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

13 finding(s): 0 critical, 4 high, 9 medium, 0 low. 3 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. semgrep hit a parse error in 5 file(s) — `REDACTED` (lines 85–116), `src/building-blocks/logging/logger.js` (line 56, line 57, line 65, …), `REDACTED` (lines 84–115), `src/identity/jest.config.ts` (line 9), `REDACTED` (lines 84–115) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 9 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) charged to Static Analysis (SAST) — the other 3 are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which charges them once. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level, 1 of them charged here).

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir/Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.

Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over REDACTED.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex, Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.

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

No known-vulnerable dependencies in the 1 ecosystem(s) that were scanned (npm). Partial dependency scan: 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (npm), and the findings above are real and complete for them. REDACTED was not scanned (REDACTED: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.

REDACTED

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D31 · IaC & Container Security0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (REDACTED/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

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

305 finding(s): 0 critical, 23 high, 237 medium, 45 low.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 237 REDACTED IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (26), REDACTED (26), REDACTED (26). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (237 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 23 REDACTED IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (12), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (23 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 45 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED (5), REDACTED (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (45 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.6 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

18 of 19 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/building-blocks/logging/logger.ts. Counted over 19 of the 148 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned files with no living knowledge

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

D40 · Network Egress Confinement6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Kubernetes workloads restrict network EGRESS with a NetworkPolicy (or Cilium policy), limiting where a compromised pod can send data or reach a command-and-control server. Presence of committed egress-restricting policy, not runtime enforcement.

Method: Deterministic YAML-manifest inspection (no external tool, no Roslyn — language-agnostic): Kubernetes workloads gate applicability; credits a NetworkPolicy / Cilium policy that restricts egress (policyTypes: [Egress] / egress rules). Reward-leaning (neutral floor climbing to 10, never a deduction — baseline misconfigs stay with D31). Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0/2 network-egress controls present (network policy, egress restriction).

No network policy

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No network policy finding(s) in Network Egress Confinement. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d40_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Kubernetes workloads confine the kernel boundary — a seccomp profile (RuntimeDefault/Localhost) plus an AppArmor/SELinux mandatory-access-control layer — shrinking the syscall attack surface a container escape would use. Presence of committed confinement config, not runtime enforcement.

Method: Deterministic YAML-manifest inspection (no external tool, no Roslyn): on Kubernetes workloads, credits a seccomp profile (RuntimeDefault/Localhost) and an AppArmor/SELinux MAC layer. Reward-leaning (neutral floor climbing to 10); NotApplicable without workloads. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0/2 syscall-confinement controls present (seccomp, AppArmor/SELinux).

No seccomp profile
No AppArmor/SELinux confinement

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No seccomp profile finding(s) in Kernel & Syscall Confinement. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 No AppArmor/SELinux confinement finding(s) in Kernel & Syscall Confinement. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d41_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D43 · Malicious Dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.

Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.

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

No known-vulnerable dependencies in the 1 ecosystem(s) that were scanned (npm). Partial dependency scan: 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (npm), and the findings above are real and complete for them. REDACTED was not scanned (REDACTED: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.

REDACTED

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.

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

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

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code, 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.
AX5 · Architecture & structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies — a domain aggregate fused to a persistence ORM (TypeORM/Prisma/MikroORM/Sequelize/Mongoose) on its own declaration (active-record) couples the domain to infrastructure. The clean-architecture dependency rule.

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

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

  • Booking is a domain type carrying TypeORM (@Entity/@Column) persistence decorators fused ON ITS OWN DECLARATION in the domain layer (with domain behaviour, no separated infrastructure model) — a domain ↔ infrastructure leak: the domain entity IS the persistence row (an active-record fusion). Separate the persistence model from the domain aggregate with a mapper. — src/booking/src/booking/entities/booking.entity.ts:3
  • Airport is a domain type carrying TypeORM (@Entity/@Column) persistence decorators fused ON ITS OWN DECLARATION in the domain layer (with domain behaviour, no separated infrastructure model) — a domain ↔ infrastructure leak: the domain entity IS the persistence row (an active-record fusion). Separate the persistence model from the domain aggregate with a mapper. — src/flight/src/airport/entities/airport.entity.ts:4
  • Seat is a domain type carrying TypeORM (@Entity/@Column) persistence decorators fused ON ITS OWN DECLARATION in the domain layer (with domain behaviour, no separated infrastructure model) — a domain ↔ infrastructure leak: the domain entity IS the persistence row (an active-record fusion). Separate the persistence model from the domain aggregate with a mapper. — src/flight/src/seat/entities/seat.entity.ts:6
  • Flight is a domain type carrying TypeORM (@Entity/@Column) persistence decorators fused ON ITS OWN DECLARATION in the domain layer (with domain behaviour, no separated infrastructure model) — a domain ↔ infrastructure leak: the domain entity IS the persistence row (an active-record fusion). Separate the persistence model from the domain aggregate with a mapper. — src/flight/src/flight/entities/flight.entity.ts:13
  • Aircraft is a domain type carrying TypeORM (@Entity/@Column) persistence decorators fused ON ITS OWN DECLARATION in the domain layer (with domain behaviour, no separated infrastructure model) — a domain ↔ infrastructure leak: the domain entity IS the persistence row (an active-record fusion). Separate the persistence model from the domain aggregate with a mapper. — src/flight/src/aircraft/entities/aircraft.entity.ts:4
  • Token is a domain type carrying TypeORM (@Entity/@Column) persistence decorators fused ON ITS OWN DECLARATION in the domain layer (with domain behaviour, no separated infrastructure model) — a domain ↔ infrastructure leak: the domain entity IS the persistence row (an active-record fusion). Separate the persistence model from the domain aggregate with a mapper. — src/identity/src/auth/entities/token.entity.ts:5
  • User is a domain type carrying TypeORM (@Entity/@Column) persistence decorators fused ON ITS OWN DECLARATION in the domain layer (with domain behaviour, no separated infrastructure model) — a domain ↔ infrastructure leak: the domain entity IS the persistence row (an active-record fusion). Separate the persistence model from the domain aggregate with a mapper. — src/identity/src/user/entities/user.entity.ts:5
  • Passenger is a domain type carrying TypeORM (@Entity/@Column) persistence decorators fused ON ITS OWN DECLARATION in the domain layer (with domain behaviour, no separated infrastructure model) — a domain ↔ infrastructure leak: the domain entity IS the persistence row (an active-record fusion). Separate the persistence model from the domain aggregate with a mapper. — src/passenger/src/passenger/entities/passenger.entity.ts:4

What to do

  • Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + mapper; leave the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository).
M1 · Documentation (README)7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add a README to the 5 of 5 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no 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 structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 1559 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: CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security — 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 & Rollback8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

What to do

  • Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P5 · DR & Backup0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether disaster recovery is planned and codified — backups, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees — from IaC + container manifests + docs, never the live cloud.

Method: Filesystem scan: disaster recovery, backup, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees from IaC, manifests, and docs. Exhaustive, deterministic, never a live environment.

  • A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.

What to do

  • Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.

Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

R1 · Type Safety7.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
R10 · Code Duplication6.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386): a block is reported only where its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or were renamed as they were pasted but kept most of their constants, and where the copies carry enough code to stand on their own or the copied extent reaches 30 lines — so a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are both found and deliberately not reported, and a clean R10 is not a claim that nothing was copied.

Method: Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Masking finds the candidates; a block is reported when its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or when a renamed copy still agrees on most of its constants, AND the copies carry enough code to stand on their own — or when the copied extent reaches 30 lines. So a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are deliberately not counted. Deterministic.

  • 47 duplicated blocks under src/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories booking, building-blocks, flight, identity, passenger — 24 of them are reported below, and 23 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 47 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 47 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 47 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on. — src/identity/src/user/features/v1/get-users/get-users.ts:11
  • src/flight/src/aircraft/features/v1/create-aircraft/create-aircraft.ts:14 · src/flight/src/airport/features/v1/create-airport/create-airport.ts:14 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — src/flight/src/aircraft/features/v1/create-aircraft/create-aircraft.ts:14
  • src/identity/src/user/features/v1/get-users/get-users.ts:11 · src/passenger/src/passenger/features/v1/get-passengers/get-passengers.ts:11 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/identity/src/user/features/v1/get-users/get-users.ts:11
  • src/booking/src/app.ts:1 · src/flight/src/app.ts:1 · src/identity/src/app.ts:1 · src/passenger/src/app.ts:1 — these 4 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 52 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done. — src/booking/src/app.ts:1
  • src/booking/src/booking/features/v1/create-booking/create-booking.ts:16 · src/flight/src/aircraft/features/v1/create-aircraft/create-aircraft.ts:14 · src/flight/src/airport/features/v1/create-airport/create-airport.ts:14 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/booking/src/booking/features/v1/create-booking/create-booking.ts:16
  • src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/create-seat/create-seat.ts:47 · src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/reserve-seat/reserve-seat.ts:35 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/create-seat/create-seat.ts:47
  • src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/create-flight/create-flight.ts:67 · src/identity/src/user/features/v1/create-user/create-user.ts:46 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/create-flight/create-flight.ts:67
  • src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/get-flight-by-id/get-flight-by-id.ts:11 · src/passenger/src/passenger/features/v1/get-passenger-by-id/get-passenger-by-id.ts:11 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/get-flight-by-id/get-flight-by-id.ts:11
  • src/building-blocks/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-consumer.ts:14 · src/building-blocks/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-publisher.ts:13 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 224 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/building-blocks/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-consumer.ts:14
  • src/identity/src/user/features/v1/create-user/create-user.ts:18 · src/identity/src/user/features/v1/update-user/update-user.ts:18 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/identity/src/user/features/v1/create-user/create-user.ts:18
  • src/booking/src/booking/mappings.ts:5 · src/flight/src/seat/mappings.ts:5 · src/identity/src/user/mapping.ts:5 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and each CITED SPAN is a SPECIALISATION DECLARATION — a type whose `extends` clause names a base and whose body hands that base its own values through `super(…)`. The shared module this dimension usually asks you to extract already exists: it is that base, every one of these sites already reaches it, and the `super(…)` call this row matched on is where each site passes its differences in. So do not read this as an extract-a-helper row — there is no missing helper, and what is left at each site is the declaration of one distinct specialisation, which cannot be deleted without deleting the thing it declares. Read what actually differs between the spans, because two different answers follow. Where the sites differ only in the values they hand the base — a type argument, a service, an alias, a cache — the repetition is a TEMPLATE, and the only moves that collapse it are to generate these declarations from the set they enumerate or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values; where that set is the point, each site pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to remove. Where instead a span carries logic OUTSIDE the delegation that is the same at every site, that logic is the part to move, and its home is the base type rather than a new module. Reported because the copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — src/booking/src/booking/mappings.ts:5
  • src/identity/src/user/features/v1/delete-user-by-id/delete-user-by-id.ts:14 · src/identity/src/user/features/v1/get-user-by-id/get-user-by-id.ts:11 · src/passenger/src/passenger/features/v1/get-passenger-by-id/get-passenger-by-id.ts:11 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/identity/src/user/features/v1/delete-user-by-id/delete-user-by-id.ts:14
  • src/identity/src/data/repositories/user.repository.ts:45 · src/passenger/src/data/repositories/passenger.repository.ts:35 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — src/identity/src/data/repositories/user.repository.ts:45
  • src/booking/src/booking/http-client/services/flight/flight.client.ts:17 · src/booking/src/booking/http-client/services/passenger/passenger.client.ts:8 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/booking/src/booking/http-client/services/flight/flight.client.ts:17
  • src/flight/src/aircraft/entities/aircraft.entity.ts:4 · src/flight/src/airport/entities/airport.entity.ts:4 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/flight/src/aircraft/entities/aircraft.entity.ts:4
  • src/flight/src/aircraft/mappings.ts:5 · src/flight/src/airport/mappings.ts:5 · src/flight/src/flight/mappings.ts:5 · src/flight/src/seat/mappings.ts:5 · +2 more site(s) not listed — the 6 copies are spread across 6 files, and each CITED SPAN is a SPECIALISATION DECLARATION — a type whose `extends` clause names a base and whose body hands that base its own values through `super(…)`. The shared module this dimension usually asks you to extract already exists: it is that base, every one of these sites already reaches it, and the `super(…)` call this row matched on is where each site passes its differences in. So do not read this as an extract-a-helper row — there is no missing helper, and what is left at each site is the declaration of one distinct specialisation, which cannot be deleted without deleting the thing it declares. Read what actually differs between the spans, because two different answers follow. Where the sites differ only in the values they hand the base — a type argument, a service, an alias, a cache — the repetition is a TEMPLATE, and the only moves that collapse it are to generate these declarations from the set they enumerate or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values; where that set is the point, each site pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to remove. Where instead a span carries logic OUTSIDE the delegation that is the same at every site, that logic is the part to move, and its home is the base type rather than a new module. Reported because the copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — src/flight/src/aircraft/mappings.ts:5
  • src/flight/src/flight/entities/flight.entity.ts:15 · src/identity/src/user/entities/user.entity.ts:13 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases. — src/flight/src/flight/entities/flight.entity.ts:15
  • src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/get-flight-by-id/get-flight-by-id.ts:11 · src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/get-available-seats/get-available-seats.ts:10 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/get-flight-by-id/get-flight-by-id.ts:11
  • src/identity/src/user/entities/user.entity.ts:10 · src/passenger/src/passenger/entities/passenger.entity.ts:6 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases. — src/identity/src/user/entities/user.entity.ts:10
  • src/booking/src/booking/mappings.ts:50 · src/flight/src/aircraft/mappings.ts:26 · src/flight/src/airport/mappings.ts:26 · src/flight/src/flight/mappings.ts:58 · +2 more site(s) not listed — the 6 copies are spread across 6 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/booking/src/booking/mappings.ts:50
  • src/building-blocks/types/exception/application.exception.ts:7 · src/building-blocks/types/exception/conflict.exception.ts:7 · src/building-blocks/types/exception/forbidden.exception.ts:7 · src/building-blocks/types/exception/http-client.exception.ts:7 · +2 more site(s) not listed — the 6 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. There is one copy in each of 6 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — src/building-blocks/types/exception/application.exception.ts:7
  • src/flight/src/data/db.context.ts:9 · src/identity/src/data/db.context.ts:9 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/flight/src/data/db.context.ts:9
  • src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/login/login.ts:33 · src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/refresh-token/refresh-token.ts:25 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/login/login.ts:33
  • src/booking/src/booking/entities/booking.entity.ts:1 · src/flight/src/aircraft/entities/aircraft.entity.ts:2 · src/flight/src/airport/entities/airport.entity.ts:2 · src/identity/src/auth/entities/token.entity.ts:3 · +1 more site(s) not listed — the 5 copies are spread across 5 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases. — src/booking/src/booking/entities/booking.entity.ts:1
  • src/booking/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:6 · src/flight/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:6 · src/identity/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:6 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 3 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — src/booking/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:6
  • src/booking/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:2 · src/flight/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:2 · src/identity/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:2 · src/passenger/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:3 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 4 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — src/booking/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:2
  • src/building-blocks/contracts/flight.contract.ts:42 · src/building-blocks/contracts/flight.contract.ts:92 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/building-blocks/contracts/flight.contract.ts:42
  • src/building-blocks/contracts/identity.contract.ts:35 · src/building-blocks/contracts/passenger.contract.ts:2 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/building-blocks/contracts/identity.contract.ts:35
  • src/booking/src/booking/mappings.ts:16 · src/flight/src/seat/mappings.ts:24 · src/identity/src/auth/mappings.ts:12 · src/identity/src/user/mapping.ts:24 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/booking/src/booking/mappings.ts:16
  • src/building-blocks/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-connection.ts:38 · src/building-blocks/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-connection.ts:82 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 67 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/building-blocks/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-connection.ts:38
  • src/building-blocks/contracts/flight.contract.ts:105 · src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/reserve-seat/reserve-seat.ts:17 · src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/login/login.ts:14 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/building-blocks/contracts/flight.contract.ts:105
  • src/building-blocks/error-handler/error-handler.ts:16 · src/building-blocks/error-handler/error-handler.ts:31 · src/building-blocks/error-handler/error-handler.ts:46 · src/building-blocks/error-handler/error-handler.ts:61 · +4 more site(s) not listed — all 8 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. — src/building-blocks/error-handler/error-handler.ts:16
  • src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/get-flight-by-id/get-flight-by-id.ts:11 · src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/get-available-seats/get-available-seats.ts:10 · src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/logout/logout.ts:10 · src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/refresh-token/refresh-token.ts:13 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/get-flight-by-id/get-flight-by-id.ts:11
  • src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/generate-token/generate-token.ts:12 · src/identity/src/user/features/v1/delete-user-by-id/delete-user-by-id.ts:14 · src/identity/src/user/features/v1/get-user-by-id/get-user-by-id.ts:11 · src/passenger/src/passenger/features/v1/get-passenger-by-id/get-passenger-by-id.ts:11 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 4 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/generate-token/generate-token.ts:12
  • src/booking/src/booking/entities/booking.entity.ts:33 · src/flight/src/seat/entities/seat.entity.ts:35 · src/passenger/src/passenger/entities/passenger.entity.ts:23 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/booking/src/booking/entities/booking.entity.ts:33
  • src/booking/src/booking/features/v1/create-booking/create-booking.ts:28 · src/flight/src/aircraft/features/v1/create-aircraft/create-aircraft.ts:26 · src/flight/src/airport/features/v1/create-airport/create-airport.ts:26 · src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/create-flight/create-flight.ts:41 · +4 more site(s) not listed — the 8 copies are spread across 8 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/booking/src/booking/features/v1/create-booking/create-booking.ts:28
  • src/booking/src/data/db.context.ts:6 · src/passenger/src/data/db.context.ts:6 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — src/booking/src/data/db.context.ts:6
  • src/identity/src/data/repositories/auth.repository.ts:8 · src/identity/src/data/repositories/auth.repository.ts:30 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 75 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/identity/src/data/repositories/auth.repository.ts:8
  • src/flight/src/extensions/mediatr.extensions.ts:24 · src/identity/src/extensions/mediatr.extensions.ts:21 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/flight/src/extensions/mediatr.extensions.ts:24

What to do

  • Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

R4 · Test Coverage3.9 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • src/identity/test/shared/fixtures/integration-test.fixture.ts:3 imports '../../../src/routes/routes', which names no file in this repository — and no rule in its .gitignore chain could cover one, so no build writes it either. The import throws as the runner collects this file, so none of its test cases run and nothing it was written to verify is verified. Restore the missing module or delete the test. It is excluded from the reachability measured above, because a file that cannot load reaches nothing. — src/identity/test/shared/fixtures/integration-test.fixture.ts
  • No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one. (×39) — src/building-blocks/contracts/flight.contract.ts, src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/create-flight/create-flight.ts, src/flight/src/data/seeds/flight.seed.ts, …

What to do

  • 5 of the 83 unreached modules are entry points — something executes or loads them by path at run time, so no import specifier addresses them and no public entry publishes them. An importing test cannot be written for them as they ship, and two different things are worth doing here — they are not the same thing. To EXERCISE them, a test that runs the script the way its caller does; that is worth having, but it will NOT clear this row, because reachability is measured over the import graph and running a file by path adds no edge to it. To CLEAR it, make them addressable: lift the logic into a module a test can import and leave the entry points thin shims over it, or put their bodies behind a main-guard (`import.meta.url === argv[1]`) and export them. Add tests that import the other 78 — directly or through their public entry.
R6 · Tooling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • This repository declares test tooling, and the ✓ above records that declaration — but src/identity/test/shared/fixtures/integration-test.fixture.ts cannot be loaded at all: it imports a module that names no file in this repository, so the runner throws while collecting it and none of its cases execute. The wiring is present and the suite it points at does not run as written, which is why the tooling tick must not be read as a statement that the tests pass. Fix the unloadable file(s) — each one is reported with its failing import under Test Coverage — then the declared script exercises what it claims to. — src/identity/test/shared/fixtures/integration-test.fixture.ts
R7 · Dead Code8.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Unreachable from the 10 application, 49 tooling and 14 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on `npm run dev` — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
  • no import path from any entry point (10 application, 49 tooling, 14 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make (×6) — src/building-blocks/jwt/jwt.ts, src/flight/src/data/migrations/1702553492495-create-flight-table.ts, src/identity/src/auth/mappings.ts, …
  • Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal. (×18) — src/booking/src/booking/features/v1/create-booking/create-booking.ts:43, src/flight/src/aircraft/features/v1/create-aircraft/create-aircraft.ts:41, src/flight/src/airport/features/v1/create-airport/create-airport.ts:41, …

What to do

  • Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.

Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.

  • Imported but not declared in any reachable package.json — installs work only by hoisting accident. — src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/generate-token/generate-token.ts:4
  • Declared in src/booking/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it. (×3)
  • Only test files import it — move it to devDependencies. — src/identity/test/unit-test/user/features/create-user.test.ts:2

What to do

  • Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
R9 · Circular Imports6.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • src/flight/src/aircraft/entities/aircraft.entity.ts → src/flight/src/flight/entities/flight.entity.ts → src/flight/src/aircraft/entities/aircraft.entity.ts (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 4 files) — src/flight/src/aircraft/entities/aircraft.entity.ts
  • src/identity/src/auth/entities/token.entity.ts → src/identity/src/user/entities/user.entity.ts → src/identity/src/auth/entities/token.entity.ts — src/identity/src/auth/entities/token.entity.ts

What to do

  • Break each cycle by extracting the shared piece into a module both sides can import.

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health83%StrongStrongest area.
Architecture83%StrongSolid.
Maturity67%Adequate — gated by D34Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness30%Weak — gated by R4, R8, P3, P5Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security55%Adequate — gated by D31Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling10%Critical — gated by DM6Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Not evidenced — 3 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.

  • 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.
Not included — 89 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
  • AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
  • AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a vertical-slice architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
  • 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 — vertical-slice architecture detected, but individual slices could not be resolved from namespaces or project layout
  • AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) 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
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • D11 Test Reliability — No tests discovered
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 179 production npm declaration(s) across 5 package.json (5 of them the product) were read for PINNING discipline (1 defect(s) reported), but the outdated/deprecated signal needs registry.npmjs.org, and no committed lockfile here resolves to the concrete versions that question is asked about, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
  • D14 License Compliance — npm licences not graded — this npm repository commits no lockfile this pass can resolve
  • 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.
  • D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.ts) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. 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
  • D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 2 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — 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 published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
  • 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.
  • D4 Code Duplication — This repository's production source (.ts) is not read by D4's token comparison, which compares .NET source: duplication in it is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream. Not scored here — read the R10 card for this repository's duplication.
  • D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — The repository ships application workloads but no cluster-governance resources (CRDs, admission webhooks, or a committed policy engine). Runtime threat-detection (Falco/Tetragon) and admission control (Kyverno/OPA-Gatekeeper/PodSecurity) are cluster-OPERATOR controls owned by the platform, not shipped by an application repo/chart — nothing for this repo to assess.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
  • D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a CS/VB/GO/SCALA/SWIFT/DART class graph, and this repository's production source is .ts, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • 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 MEASURED: the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — the jest suite in src/booking/ ran and not one test passed (No tests found, exiting with code 1), so the coverage would describe the failed run, not the code. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
  • DM1 Aggregate boundaries — not scored for TypeScript: a class holding another class reads the same whether the inner type is an aggregate or a value object, so this cannot be decided from source without guessing — reported as guidance rather than measured
  • DM2 Strongly-typed ids — not scored for TypeScript: branded ids (`type Id = string & { __brand }`) are an uncommon idiom, so a bare-string id is not on its own evidence of a missing typed id — reported as guidance rather than measured
  • DM3 Integration-event coupling — not scored for TypeScript: a domain type used across packages is indistinguishable in source from a deliberate shared-kernel package, so this is reported as guidance rather than measured
  • DM4 Rich vs anemic model — not scored for TypeScript: telling a rich domain entity from an anemic data holder needs the behaviour a source-only read cannot always attribute (components, DTOs and readonly value objects are all legitimately data-shaped), so this is reported as guidance rather than measured
  • DM5 Encapsulated state — not scored for TypeScript: the language already steers state behind #private/private/readonly, so a mutable public field is rare enough that we report this as guidance rather than measuring it
  • DM7 Repository granularity — not scored for TypeScript: deciding whether a repository belongs to an aggregate root needs the aggregate structure, which source alone does not state — reported as guidance rather than measured
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • 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# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. 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
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
  • P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
  • P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from 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
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) 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 — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
  • R5 Dependency Freshness — no package-lock.json — dependency freshness not measured (would require an npm lockfile); JS/npm CVEs are scored in D30 (Dependency Vulnerabilities), which answers every ecosystem
  • 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.
  • X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • 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 reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • 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
  • X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, 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 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
  • X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 45 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security · REDACTED IaC · ×23
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary · Domain fused to persistence infrastructure · ×8
  • Domain fused to persistence infrastructure: Booking src/booking/src/booking/entities/booking.entity.ts:3 — Booking is a domain type carrying TypeORM (@Entity/@Column) persistence decorators fused ON ITS OWN DECLARATION in the domain layer (with domain behaviour, no separated infrastructure model) — a domain ↔ infrastructure leak: the domain entity IS the persistence row (an active-record fusion). Separate the persistence model from the domain aggregate with a mapper.
  • Domain fused to persistence infrastructure: Airport src/flight/src/airport/entities/airport.entity.ts:4 — Airport is a domain type carrying TypeORM (@Entity/@Column) persistence decorators fused ON ITS OWN DECLARATION in the domain layer (with domain behaviour, no separated infrastructure model) — a domain ↔ infrastructure leak: the domain entity IS the persistence row (an active-record fusion). Separate the persistence model from the domain aggregate with a mapper.
  • Domain fused to persistence infrastructure: Seat src/flight/src/seat/entities/seat.entity.ts:6 — Seat is a domain type carrying TypeORM (@Entity/@Column) persistence decorators fused ON ITS OWN DECLARATION in the domain layer (with domain behaviour, no separated infrastructure model) — a domain ↔ infrastructure leak: the domain entity IS the persistence row (an active-record fusion). Separate the persistence model from the domain aggregate with a mapper.
  • Domain fused to persistence infrastructure: Flight src/flight/src/flight/entities/flight.entity.ts:13 — Flight is a domain type carrying TypeORM (@Entity/@Column) persistence decorators fused ON ITS OWN DECLARATION in the domain layer (with domain behaviour, no separated infrastructure model) — a domain ↔ infrastructure leak: the domain entity IS the persistence row (an active-record fusion). Separate the persistence model from the domain aggregate with a mapper.
  • Domain fused to persistence infrastructure: Aircraft src/flight/src/aircraft/entities/aircraft.entity.ts:4 — Aircraft is a domain type carrying TypeORM (@Entity/@Column) persistence decorators fused ON ITS OWN DECLARATION in the domain layer (with domain behaviour, no separated infrastructure model) — a domain ↔ infrastructure leak: the domain entity IS the persistence row (an active-record fusion). Separate the persistence model from the domain aggregate with a mapper.
  • Domain fused to persistence infrastructure: Token src/identity/src/auth/entities/token.entity.ts:5 — Token is a domain type carrying TypeORM (@Entity/@Column) persistence decorators fused ON ITS OWN DECLARATION in the domain layer (with domain behaviour, no separated infrastructure model) — a domain ↔ infrastructure leak: the domain entity IS the persistence row (an active-record fusion). Separate the persistence model from the domain aggregate with a mapper.
  • Domain fused to persistence infrastructure: User src/identity/src/user/entities/user.entity.ts:5 — User is a domain type carrying TypeORM (@Entity/@Column) persistence decorators fused ON ITS OWN DECLARATION in the domain layer (with domain behaviour, no separated infrastructure model) — a domain ↔ infrastructure leak: the domain entity IS the persistence row (an active-record fusion). Separate the persistence model from the domain aggregate with a mapper.
  • Domain fused to persistence infrastructure: Passenger src/passenger/src/passenger/entities/passenger.entity.ts:4 — Passenger is a domain type carrying TypeORM (@Entity/@Column) persistence decorators fused ON ITS OWN DECLARATION in the domain layer (with domain behaviour, no separated infrastructure model) — a domain ↔ infrastructure leak: the domain entity IS the persistence row (an active-record fusion). Separate the persistence model from the domain aggregate with a mapper.
D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×4
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×4
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D11 · Test Reliability · Test suite declares a test script but contains no test files · ×3
  • Test suite declares a test script but contains no test files: src/booking/ — The jest suite in src/booking/ was installed and launched successfully, and the runner then found no test files to run — No tests found, exiting with code 1. The package declares a test script, so it reads as a tested package to anyone who checks its manifest, but there is nothing behind the declaration: no test case exists, so it cannot detect a regression and its presence overstates how much of this repository is tested. The ask is the owner's: write the first test for this package, or remove the test script from a package that has none. This is not a report that the tests FAIL — there are none.
  • Test suite declares a test script but contains no test files: src/flight/ — The jest suite in src/flight/ was installed and launched successfully, and the runner then found no test files to run — No tests found, exiting with code 1. The package declares a test script, so it reads as a tested package to anyone who checks its manifest, but there is nothing behind the declaration: no test case exists, so it cannot detect a regression and its presence overstates how much of this repository is tested. The ask is the owner's: write the first test for this package, or remove the test script from a package that has none. This is not a report that the tests FAIL — there are none.
  • Test suite declares a test script but contains no test files: src/passenger/ — The jest suite in src/passenger/ was installed and launched successfully, and the runner then found no test files to run — No tests found, exiting with code 1. The package declares a test script, so it reads as a tested package to anyone who checks its manifest, but there is nothing behind the declaration: no test case exists, so it cannot detect a regression and its presence overstates how much of this repository is tested. The ask is the owner's: write the first test for this package, or remove the test script from a package that has none. This is not a report that the tests FAIL — there are none.
R9 · Circular Imports · Import cycle (2 files) · ×2
  • Import cycle (2 files) src/flight/src/aircraft/entities/aircraft.entity.ts — src/flight/src/aircraft/entities/aircraft.entity.ts → src/flight/src/flight/entities/flight.entity.ts → src/flight/src/aircraft/entities/aircraft.entity.ts (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 4 files)
  • Import cycle (2 files) src/identity/src/auth/entities/token.entity.ts — src/identity/src/auth/entities/token.entity.ts → src/identity/src/user/entities/user.entity.ts → src/identity/src/auth/entities/token.entity.ts
R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unlisted import 'jsonwebtoken' · ×1
  • Unlisted import 'jsonwebtoken' src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/generate-token/generate-token.ts:4 — Imported but not declared in any reachable package.json — installs work only by hoisting accident.
Serious — 340 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security · REDACTED IaC · ×237
  • 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
  • + 212 more in this group — see findings.md.
R4 · Test Coverage · No test reaches this file · ×39
  • No test reaches this file src/building-blocks/contracts/flight.contract.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/create-flight/create-flight.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/flight/src/data/seeds/flight.seed.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/booking/src/booking/features/v1/create-booking/create-booking.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/create-seat/create-seat.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/reserve-seat/reserve-seat.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/flight/src/aircraft/features/v1/create-aircraft/create-aircraft.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/flight/src/airport/features/v1/create-airport/create-airport.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/booking/src/app.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/passenger/src/passenger/features/v1/get-passengers/get-passengers.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/flight/src/app.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/identity/src/app.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/passenger/src/app.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/flight/src/flight/entities/flight.entity.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/flight/src/flight/mappings.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/booking/src/booking/mappings.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/booking/src/booking/http-client/services/flight/flight.client.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/building-blocks/jwt/jwt.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/flight/src/data/migrations/1702553492495-create-flight-table.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/building-blocks/open-telemetry/open-telemetry.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/flight/src/data/repositories/seat.repository.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/passenger/src/data/repositories/passenger.repository.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/passenger/src/passenger/features/v1/get-passenger-by-id/get-passenger-by-id.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/get-flight-by-id/get-flight-by-id.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/get-available-seats/get-available-seats.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • + 14 more in this group — see findings.md.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×9
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2 locations) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2 locations) src/flight/src/flight/entities/flight.entity.ts:15 — src/flight/src/flight/entities/flight.entity.ts:15 · src/identity/src/user/entities/user.entity.ts:13 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases.
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2 locations) src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/get-flight-by-id/get-flight-by-id.ts:11 — src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/get-flight-by-id/get-flight-by-id.ts:11 · src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/get-available-seats/get-available-seats.ts:10 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2 locations) src/identity/src/user/entities/user.entity.ts:10 — src/identity/src/user/entities/user.entity.ts:10 · src/passenger/src/passenger/entities/passenger.entity.ts:6 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (38 lines × 2 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (38 lines × 2 locations) src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/create-flight/create-flight.ts:67 — src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/create-flight/create-flight.ts:67 · src/identity/src/user/features/v1/create-user/create-user.ts:46 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (38 lines × 2 locations) src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/get-flight-by-id/get-flight-by-id.ts:11 — src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/get-flight-by-id/get-flight-by-id.ts:11 · src/passenger/src/passenger/features/v1/get-passenger-by-id/get-passenger-by-id.ts:11 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) src/booking/src/booking/http-client/services/flight/flight.client.ts:17 — src/booking/src/booking/http-client/services/flight/flight.client.ts:17 · src/booking/src/booking/http-client/services/passenger/passenger.client.ts:8 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) src/flight/src/aircraft/entities/aircraft.entity.ts:4 — src/flight/src/aircraft/entities/aircraft.entity.ts:4 · src/flight/src/airport/entities/airport.entity.ts:4 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 6 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 6 locations) src/booking/src/booking/mappings.ts:50 — src/booking/src/booking/mappings.ts:50 · src/flight/src/aircraft/mappings.ts:26 · src/flight/src/airport/mappings.ts:26 · src/flight/src/flight/mappings.ts:58 · +2 more site(s) not listed — the 6 copies are spread across 6 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 6 locations) src/building-blocks/types/exception/application.exception.ts:7 — src/building-blocks/types/exception/application.exception.ts:7 · src/building-blocks/types/exception/conflict.exception.ts:7 · src/building-blocks/types/exception/forbidden.exception.ts:7 · src/building-blocks/types/exception/http-client.exception.ts:7 · +2 more site(s) not listed — the 6 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. There is one copy in each of 6 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) src/flight/src/data/db.context.ts:9 — src/flight/src/data/db.context.ts:9 · src/identity/src/data/db.context.ts:9 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/login/login.ts:33 — src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/login/login.ts:33 · src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/refresh-token/refresh-token.ts:25 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) src/building-blocks/contracts/flight.contract.ts:42 — src/building-blocks/contracts/flight.contract.ts:42 · src/building-blocks/contracts/flight.contract.ts:92 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) src/building-blocks/contracts/identity.contract.ts:35 — src/building-blocks/contracts/identity.contract.ts:35 · src/building-blocks/contracts/passenger.contract.ts:2 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~61 LoC) · ×2
  • Dead file (~61 LoC) src/building-blocks/jwt/jwt.ts — no import path from any entry point (10 application, 49 tooling, 14 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make
  • Dead file (~61 LoC) src/flight/src/data/migrations/1702553492495-create-flight-table.ts — no import path from any entry point (10 application, 49 tooling, 14 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · REDACTED.expressAuthentication (cognitive 29) · ×1
  • REDACTED.expressAuthentication (cognitive 29) src/building-blocks/jwt/jwt.ts:7 — REDACTED.expressAuthentication has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (22 pts), loops 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 14). Most of this is not in the body itself: 12 of the 29 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 39, 35). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — JavaScript/TypeScript suite — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — the jest suite in src/booking/ ran and not one test passed (No tests found, exiting with code 1), so the coverage would describe the failed run, not the code. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
P5 · DR & Backup · No DR/backup evidence · ×1
  • No DR/backup evidence — A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplication concentrated across 5 sibling directories (47 clone groups) · ×1
  • Duplication concentrated across 5 sibling directories (47 clone groups) src/identity/src/user/features/v1/get-users/get-users.ts:11 — 47 duplicated blocks under src/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories booking, building-blocks, flight, identity, passenger — 24 of them are reported below, and 23 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 47 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 47 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 47 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (62 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (62 lines × 2 locations) src/flight/src/aircraft/features/v1/create-aircraft/create-aircraft.ts:14 — src/flight/src/aircraft/features/v1/create-aircraft/create-aircraft.ts:14 · src/flight/src/airport/features/v1/create-airport/create-airport.ts:14 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (58 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (58 lines × 2 locations) src/identity/src/user/features/v1/get-users/get-users.ts:11 — src/identity/src/user/features/v1/get-users/get-users.ts:11 · src/passenger/src/passenger/features/v1/get-passengers/get-passengers.ts:11 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
R10 · Code Duplication · Wholesale file copy (52 identical lines × 4 files) · ×1
  • Wholesale file copy (52 identical lines × 4 files) src/booking/src/app.ts:1 — src/booking/src/app.ts:1 · src/flight/src/app.ts:1 · src/identity/src/app.ts:1 · src/passenger/src/app.ts:1 — these 4 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 52 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (47 lines × 3 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (47 lines × 3 locations) src/booking/src/booking/features/v1/create-booking/create-booking.ts:16 — src/booking/src/booking/features/v1/create-booking/create-booking.ts:16 · src/flight/src/aircraft/features/v1/create-aircraft/create-aircraft.ts:14 · src/flight/src/airport/features/v1/create-airport/create-airport.ts:14 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (40 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (40 lines × 2 locations) src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/create-seat/create-seat.ts:47 — src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/create-seat/create-seat.ts:47 · src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/reserve-seat/reserve-seat.ts:35 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (36 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block with local edits (36 matched lines × 2 locations) src/building-blocks/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-consumer.ts:14 — src/building-blocks/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-consumer.ts:14 · src/building-blocks/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-publisher.ts:13 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 224 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (32 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (32 lines × 2 locations) src/identity/src/user/features/v1/create-user/create-user.ts:18 — src/identity/src/user/features/v1/create-user/create-user.ts:18 · src/identity/src/user/features/v1/update-user/update-user.ts:18 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (29 lines × 3 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (29 lines × 3 locations) src/booking/src/booking/mappings.ts:5 — src/booking/src/booking/mappings.ts:5 · src/flight/src/seat/mappings.ts:5 · src/identity/src/user/mapping.ts:5 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and each CITED SPAN is a SPECIALISATION DECLARATION — a type whose `extends` clause names a base and whose body hands that base its own values through `super(…)`. The shared module this dimension usually asks you to extract already exists: it is that base, every one of these sites already reaches it, and the `super(…)` call this row matched on is where each site passes its differences in. So do not read this as an extract-a-helper row — there is no missing helper, and what is left at each site is the declaration of one distinct specialisation, which cannot be deleted without deleting the thing it declares. Read what actually differs between the spans, because two different answers follow. Where the sites differ only in the values they hand the base — a type argument, a service, an alias, a cache — the repetition is a TEMPLATE, and the only moves that collapse it are to generate these declarations from the set they enumerate or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values; where that set is the point, each site pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to remove. Where instead a span carries logic OUTSIDE the delegation that is the same at every site, that logic is the part to move, and its home is the base type rather than a new module. Reported because the copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (25 lines × 3 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (25 lines × 3 locations) src/identity/src/user/features/v1/delete-user-by-id/delete-user-by-id.ts:14 — src/identity/src/user/features/v1/delete-user-by-id/delete-user-by-id.ts:14 · src/identity/src/user/features/v1/get-user-by-id/get-user-by-id.ts:11 · src/passenger/src/passenger/features/v1/get-passenger-by-id/get-passenger-by-id.ts:11 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) src/identity/src/data/repositories/user.repository.ts:45 — src/identity/src/data/repositories/user.repository.ts:45 · src/passenger/src/data/repositories/passenger.repository.ts:35 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 6 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 6 locations) src/flight/src/aircraft/mappings.ts:5 — src/flight/src/aircraft/mappings.ts:5 · src/flight/src/airport/mappings.ts:5 · src/flight/src/flight/mappings.ts:5 · src/flight/src/seat/mappings.ts:5 · +2 more site(s) not listed — the 6 copies are spread across 6 files, and each CITED SPAN is a SPECIALISATION DECLARATION — a type whose `extends` clause names a base and whose body hands that base its own values through `super(…)`. The shared module this dimension usually asks you to extract already exists: it is that base, every one of these sites already reaches it, and the `super(…)` call this row matched on is where each site passes its differences in. So do not read this as an extract-a-helper row — there is no missing helper, and what is left at each site is the declaration of one distinct specialisation, which cannot be deleted without deleting the thing it declares. Read what actually differs between the spans, because two different answers follow. Where the sites differ only in the values they hand the base — a type argument, a service, an alias, a cache — the repetition is a TEMPLATE, and the only moves that collapse it are to generate these declarations from the set they enumerate or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values; where that set is the point, each site pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to remove. Where instead a span carries logic OUTSIDE the delegation that is the same at every site, that logic is the part to move, and its home is the base type rather than a new module. Reported because the copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 5 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 5 locations) src/booking/src/booking/entities/booking.entity.ts:1 — src/booking/src/booking/entities/booking.entity.ts:1 · src/flight/src/aircraft/entities/aircraft.entity.ts:2 · src/flight/src/airport/entities/airport.entity.ts:2 · src/identity/src/auth/entities/token.entity.ts:3 · +1 more site(s) not listed — the 5 copies are spread across 5 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 3 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 3 locations) src/booking/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:6 — src/booking/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:6 · src/flight/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:6 · src/identity/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:6 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 3 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 4 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 4 locations) src/booking/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:2 — src/booking/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:2 · src/flight/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:2 · src/identity/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:2 · src/passenger/src/extensions/rabbitmq.extensions.ts:3 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 4 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 4 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 4 locations) src/booking/src/booking/mappings.ts:16 — src/booking/src/booking/mappings.ts:16 · src/flight/src/seat/mappings.ts:24 · src/identity/src/auth/mappings.ts:12 · src/identity/src/user/mapping.ts:24 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (13 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block with local edits (13 matched lines × 2 locations) src/building-blocks/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-connection.ts:38 — src/building-blocks/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-connection.ts:38 · src/building-blocks/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-connection.ts:82 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 67 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 3 locations) src/building-blocks/contracts/flight.contract.ts:105 — src/building-blocks/contracts/flight.contract.ts:105 · src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/reserve-seat/reserve-seat.ts:17 · src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/login/login.ts:14 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 8 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 8 locations) src/building-blocks/error-handler/error-handler.ts:16 — src/building-blocks/error-handler/error-handler.ts:16 · src/building-blocks/error-handler/error-handler.ts:31 · src/building-blocks/error-handler/error-handler.ts:46 · src/building-blocks/error-handler/error-handler.ts:61 · +4 more site(s) not listed — all 8 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 4 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 4 locations) src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/get-flight-by-id/get-flight-by-id.ts:11 — src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/get-flight-by-id/get-flight-by-id.ts:11 · src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/get-available-seats/get-available-seats.ts:10 · src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/logout/logout.ts:10 · src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/refresh-token/refresh-token.ts:13 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 4 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 4 locations) src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/generate-token/generate-token.ts:12 — src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/generate-token/generate-token.ts:12 · src/identity/src/user/features/v1/delete-user-by-id/delete-user-by-id.ts:14 · src/identity/src/user/features/v1/get-user-by-id/get-user-by-id.ts:11 · src/passenger/src/passenger/features/v1/get-passenger-by-id/get-passenger-by-id.ts:11 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 4 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 3 locations) src/booking/src/booking/entities/booking.entity.ts:33 — src/booking/src/booking/entities/booking.entity.ts:33 · src/flight/src/seat/entities/seat.entity.ts:35 · src/passenger/src/passenger/entities/passenger.entity.ts:23 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 8 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 8 locations) src/booking/src/booking/features/v1/create-booking/create-booking.ts:28 — src/booking/src/booking/features/v1/create-booking/create-booking.ts:28 · src/flight/src/aircraft/features/v1/create-aircraft/create-aircraft.ts:26 · src/flight/src/airport/features/v1/create-airport/create-airport.ts:26 · src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/create-flight/create-flight.ts:41 · +4 more site(s) not listed — the 8 copies are spread across 8 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) src/booking/src/data/db.context.ts:6 — src/booking/src/data/db.context.ts:6 · src/passenger/src/data/db.context.ts:6 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (9 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block with local edits (9 matched lines × 2 locations) src/identity/src/data/repositories/auth.repository.ts:8 — src/identity/src/data/repositories/auth.repository.ts:8 · src/identity/src/data/repositories/auth.repository.ts:30 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 75 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) src/flight/src/extensions/mediatr.extensions.ts:24 — src/flight/src/extensions/mediatr.extensions.ts:24 · src/identity/src/extensions/mediatr.extensions.ts:21 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R4 · Test Coverage · This test file cannot be loaded · ×1
  • This test file cannot be loaded src/identity/test/shared/fixtures/integration-test.fixture.ts — src/identity/test/shared/fixtures/integration-test.fixture.ts:3 imports '../../../src/routes/routes', which names no file in this repository — and no rule in its .gitignore chain could cover one, so no build writes it either. The import throws as the runner collects this file, so none of its test cases run and nothing it was written to verify is verified. Restore the missing module or delete the test. It is excluded from the reachability measured above, because a file that cannot load reaches nothing.
R6 · Tooling · The declared test suite includes a file that cannot be loaded · ×1
  • The declared test suite includes a file that cannot be loaded src/identity/test/shared/fixtures/integration-test.fixture.ts — This repository declares test tooling, and the ✓ above records that declaration — but src/identity/test/shared/fixtures/integration-test.fixture.ts cannot be loaded at all: it imports a module that names no file in this repository, so the runner throws while collecting it and none of its cases execute. The wiring is present and the suite it points at does not run as written, which is why the tooling tick must not be read as a statement that the tests pass. Fix the unloadable file(s) — each one is reported with its failing import under Test Coverage — then the declared script exercises what it claims to.
R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~30 LoC) · ×1
  • Dead file (~30 LoC) src/identity/src/auth/mappings.ts — no import path from any entry point (10 application, 49 tooling, 14 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make
R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~25 LoC) · ×1
  • Dead file (~25 LoC) src/identity/src/data/migrations/1702550291057-create-user-table.ts — no import path from any entry point (10 application, 49 tooling, 14 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make
R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~19 LoC) · ×1
  • Dead file (~19 LoC) src/passenger/src/data/migrations/1702553578224-create-passenger-table.ts — no import path from any entry point (10 application, 49 tooling, 14 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make
R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~15 LoC) · ×1
  • Dead file (~15 LoC) src/booking/src/data/migrations/1702553396443-create-booking-table.ts — no import path from any entry point (10 application, 49 tooling, 14 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make
R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@eslint/js' · ×1
  • Unused dependency '@eslint/js' — Declared in src/booking/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@faker-js/faker' · ×1
  • Unused dependency '@faker-js/faker' — Declared in src/booking/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@opentelemetry/sdk-trace-node' · ×1
  • Unused dependency '@opentelemetry/sdk-trace-node' — Declared in src/booking/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene · JavaScript dependencies are not locked · ×1
  • JavaScript dependencies are not locked — No package-lock.json / yarn.lock / pnpm-lock.yaml / bun.lock — JS installs aren't reproducible (SSDF PW.4.4). Commit your package manager's lockfile and install from it (`npm ci`, `yarn --immutable`, `pnpm i --frozen-lockfile` or `bun i --frozen-lockfile`). Advisory — never scored.
Minor — 76 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×45
  • 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
  • + 20 more in this group — see findings.md.
D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×2
  • Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md — The document names a GitHub Actions workflow badge and links to a license badge but provides no install/build or setup instructions for the project. Add installation steps (node/npm version, dependencies, build commands) so new contributors can set up the project.
  • Documentation: no usage examples README.md — The How-to-Run section covers Docker Compose/Kubernetes/Build/Test but there are no usage examples showing how to run a single service or access an API endpoint. Add one or two short usage examples (e.g. curl /GET /identity, npm run start) demonstrating the project's main functionality.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'GetUserByIdController' · ×2
  • Unused export 'GetUserByIdController' src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/get-flight-by-id/get-flight-by-id.ts:26 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
  • Unused export 'GetUserByIdController' src/identity/src/user/features/v1/get-user-by-id/get-user-by-id.ts:26 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Scanner failed to run · ×1
  • REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned files with no living knowledge · ×1
  • Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 18 of 19 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 19 of the 148 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: src/building-blocks/logging/logger.ts, src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/create-flight/create-flight.ts, src/booking/src/booking/features/v1/create-booking/create-booking.ts, src/building-blocks/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-consumer.ts, src/building-blocks/error-handler/error-handler.ts, src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/create-seat/create-seat.ts, src/identity/src/user/features/v1/update-user/update-user.ts, src/identity/src/user/features/v1/create-user/create-user.ts (and 10 more). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D40 · Network Egress Confinement · No network policy · ×1
  • No network policy — No Kubernetes NetworkPolicy (or Cilium policy) found. Without one, every pod can talk to every other pod and reach out to the internet by default. Add a default-deny policy and open only the flows you need.
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement · No seccomp profile · ×1
  • No seccomp profile — Workloads do not set a seccomp profile (RuntimeDefault or a Localhost profile). Seccomp blocks the syscalls a container never needs, shrinking the kernel attack surface a container escape would use.
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement · No AppArmor/SELinux confinement · ×1
  • No AppArmor/SELinux confinement — Workloads declare no AppArmor or SELinux profile. A mandatory-access-control profile confines what a compromised container can touch on the host, complementing seccomp's syscall filter.
D43 · Malicious Dependencies · Scanner failed to run · ×1
  • REDACTED
M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1
  • No ADRs — 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.
P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1
  • No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 1559 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.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'CreateBookingController' · ×1
  • Unused export 'CreateBookingController' src/booking/src/booking/features/v1/create-booking/create-booking.ts:43 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'CreateAircraftController' · ×1
  • Unused export 'CreateAircraftController' src/flight/src/aircraft/features/v1/create-aircraft/create-aircraft.ts:41 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'CreateAirportController' · ×1
  • Unused export 'CreateAirportController' src/flight/src/airport/features/v1/create-airport/create-airport.ts:41 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'CreateFlightController' · ×1
  • Unused export 'CreateFlightController' src/flight/src/flight/features/v1/create-flight/create-flight.ts:71 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'CreateSeatController' · ×1
  • Unused export 'CreateSeatController' src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/create-seat/create-seat.ts:51 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'GetAvailableSeatsController' · ×1
  • Unused export 'GetAvailableSeatsController' src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/get-available-seats/get-available-seats.ts:25 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'ReserveSeatController' · ×1
  • Unused export 'ReserveSeatController' src/flight/src/seat/features/v1/reserve-seat/reserve-seat.ts:39 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'LoginController' · ×1
  • Unused export 'LoginController' src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/login/login.ts:36 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'LogoutController' · ×1
  • Unused export 'LogoutController' src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/logout/logout.ts:25 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'RefreshTokenController' · ×1
  • Unused export 'RefreshTokenController' src/identity/src/auth/features/v1/refresh-token/refresh-token.ts:28 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'CreateUserController' · ×1
  • Unused export 'CreateUserController' src/identity/src/user/features/v1/create-user/create-user.ts:50 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'DeleteUserByIdController' · ×1
  • Unused export 'DeleteUserByIdController' src/identity/src/user/features/v1/delete-user-by-id/delete-user-by-id.ts:29 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'GetUsersController' · ×1
  • Unused export 'GetUsersController' src/identity/src/user/features/v1/get-users/get-users.ts:32 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'UpdateUserController' · ×1
  • Unused export 'UpdateUserController' src/identity/src/user/features/v1/update-user/update-user.ts:50 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'GetPassengerByIdController' · ×1
  • Unused export 'GetPassengerByIdController' src/passenger/src/passenger/features/v1/get-passenger-by-id/get-passenger-by-id.ts:26 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'GetPassengersController' · ×1
  • Unused export 'GetPassengersController' src/passenger/src/passenger/features/v1/get-passengers/get-passengers.ts:32 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Test-only dependency 'typemoq' in production deps · ×1
  • Test-only dependency 'typemoq' in production deps src/identity/test/unit-test/user/features/create-user.test.ts:2 — Only test files import it — move it to devDependencies.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-4c7f8667b13e49378edde32f80027b5e/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .5artifacts/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-4c7f8667b13e49378edde32f80027b5e/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .2artifacts/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 .13artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner --format json --recursive .0—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update0artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy config --format json --quiet .305artifacts/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. semgrep could not parse 2 file(s) — `src/building-blocks/logging/logger.js`, `src/identity/jest.config.ts` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—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—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — The repository ships application workloads but no cluster-governance resources (CRDs, admission webhooks, or a committed policy engine). Runtime threat-detection (Falco/Tetragon) and admission control (Kyverno/OPA-Gatekeeper/PodSecurity) are cluster-OPERATOR controls owned by the platform, not shipped by an application repo/chart — nothing for this repo to assess.0—
D43 · Malicious Dependenciesosv-scanner—osv-scanner --format json --recursive .0—
D43 · Malicious Dependenciestrivy—trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update0artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a0c0eb-73d0-7140-8f7b-32d668008aaf · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Downloadable artifacts

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

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